One might tend to glance over women and the use of women throughout Genealogies. One reason might be because they are not very prominent. Another could be due to negligence. One more might be due to the fear that we would find sexist implications in scripture. All these reasons should be overcome in a proper study of scripture. Women are present in Genealogies, and they accomplish a vital purpose.
We must first consider culture. We cannot ignore that ancient cultures routinely overlooked women in family documentation. We also note the cultural standards when it comes to the name of family. Males have been the dominant head and spokesman for the family unit save for matriarchal societies. The Scriptures support that God made man to be the head of the family, and for the woman to be his support.[1] This order has been represented throughout most history. This order has at times been abused, and is the basis for most feminist movements. This article is not going to address the issues at stake with misuse of authority. The cultural standard was well established- that men are the centerpiece of family documentation. Lest we be too hard on them, this mentality is still accepted today. Men pass on the family name, and are still predominantly considered the heads of family.
The second consideration is the literature style that represents that culture. Very rarely is it specifically stated that a genealogy passes through a woman without a man present. We do find some cases that family lines must go through women (1 Chron 7:18). In the cases where a man has only daughters, he searches to find a man to take his family title through a daughter.[2] When it comes to genealogies and official family titles, the name never passes through the woman. Even when a line must pass through a daughter or sister, they are still identified in relation to their brothers or fathers. This is not due to demeaning attitudes, but the culture mentioned above. As a modern parallel, it would be like a man who has no sons, looking for another man who is willing to change his last name to carry on the family title. The blood relation is still equally present passing through daughters.
The third area to study is the individual use of women within the genealogical format. There is a dominant reason for using women in Jewish genealogy. This is best noted in the Genesis 46 account of Israel’s sons and the kingly genealogy in 1 Chronicles. In these accounts women are essential in dividing households. In a culture where multiple wives were permissible (though unadvised), the mothers were the best way to determine house and family rights. The firstborn was entitled to particular rights. The kingly houses appeared to function similarly. Occasionally sisters will be mentioned by name.[3] The reasons for this is hard to say. There was likely a family significance to those women that are not recorded in the official records. The fact that they are recorded at all means that the official records work hard to preserve family tradition more than sexist tradition. The genealogies that include women as mothers often have extended backgrounds. The Biblical authors have no qualms with going against cultural norms to stress important principles. There are three in particular that are worth noting.
The story of Ruth ends with a genealogy, and focuses on Ruth throughout the book. The genealogy itself does not mention Ruth at all. Nor does it trace through Ruth. The stress actually goes to Ruth’s first husband’s family: Naomi. This story is recorded to present a godly story about a woman in a time period of moral decline. The genealogy roots her in history and shows God’s providence as he spares by a hair (heir?) the family of David.
The story of Tamar takes an entire chapter in Genesis to tell.[4] This chapter seams to be horribly out of place. It does not change the blood relation of the children or much about the family houses. Because of the story, Tamar is commonly mentioned in conjunction with Judah’s children. In both of these stories, the stress is not on the gender of the person, but the story and lessons behind it. It should not surprise us when the third prime example does the same.
Matthew uses four/five women in his genealogy. This is a remarkable number in such a consolidated list. Tamar and Bathsheba, who have similar stories, are recorded in OT genealogies, and are likely mention by Matthew to stay consistent with those records. He also mentions two in addition. Ruth is mentioned, even though she was not vital to the bloodline of the family (Boaz could have continued the family line without Ruth), and Rahab is mentioned, even though she is not mentioned in any other family connection. Why does Matthew use women, and Luke stick only to the dominant line? Matthew, by mentioning Ruth and Rahab, is likely intending to remind the reader of their stories. The use of these women have more to do with identification of the stories than cultural standards. I do not believe Matthew includes them to just bring up the subject of women. Nor do I think they are intended to represent the scandalous circumstances of Mary. There is a central theme that all four women share that will foreshadow Jesus and his role as king.
The common theme is salvation. Matthew records the angel saying of Jesus that “He will save his people from their sins.”[5] The four women are not arbitrary. They all have noted stories in scripture of saving their family. Tamar goes to extreme measures (even unethical measures) to preserve the family she has married into. Rahab risks her own life to help the Israelites for the purpose of saving her family from destruction. Ruth obeys her mother in law and pursues a possibly less desirable man in order to carry on her family’s name. And Bathsheba (later in life) begs David to proactively establish her son as king, lest the family be torn apart in a civil war.[6] The stories of these women are about the salvation of their family. Jesus comes as king to save His people too.
Women are not ignored in genealogies. Nor are they stereotyped. We read of mothers, daughters, sisters, and even influential leaders (1 Chron 7:24). When they are present, they are intended to recall special stories and family memories that are important to preserve. Women have a special preserving ability through the bearing of children.[7] No genealogy could be possible without them. Understanding their importance historically and genealogically will strengthen our faith and understanding of God.
___________________________________
[1] Genesis 2:18; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9; 1 Timothy 2:12
[2] Numbers 36:6; 1 Chronicles 2:34
[3] 1 Chronicles 4:3; 7:15
[4] Genesis 38
[5] Matthew 1:21
[6] Genesis 38; Ruth; Joshua 2; 1 Kings 1
[7] 1 Timothy 2:15