Scholars of all persuasions agree that Matthew’s genealogy is a creation, stylized, and intended to convey thematic truths rather than biological descent.

One of the hints leading scholars to this conclusion is the mention of women in the genealogy, a striking deviation from traditional models.

His genealogy mentions: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and, ambiguously, “the x of Uriah.”

There have been two contesting views over what links these four anomalies: one is that they are all, to one degree or another, related to Gentiles; the other, that they are all, to one degree or another, associated with some scandalous sexual circumstance.  According to the first, the presence of Gentile figures is explained by pointing out that Matthew’s gospel includes and concludes with great interest in Gentile inclusion in the growing Jesus movement; that is, the genealogy forms a kind of bookend with the so-called great commission.  According to the second, Matthew’s inclusion of these women (it must be women, despite that Bathsheeba is not mentioned) is made because each was involved in some sexual indescrition.  Tamar had sex with her father in law; Ruth entered into an ambiguous physical relationship with Boaz; and x (Bathsheba) was raped (by modern standards) by David. 

I will here present the reasons given for both views and then why I think the view of sexual indescretion bogus and the view that highlights Gentile inclusion preferable.

Advocates of the motif of sexual scandal argue against the motif of Gentile inclusion on one ground: in the OT Uriah is never called Uriah simply; he is always called Uriah the Hittite.  it follows, for these advocates, that if Matthew intended a Gentile motif then he would have said, “Uriah the Hittite”. Since he did not, it is better to look at the literary context of the women.  Tamar had sex with her (former) father in law and got pregnant; Rahab was a prostitute; Ruth had a “sexualized” experience with Boaz, and David had sex with Bathsheba.  Why might Matthew proceed along these lines?  Proponents give their answer: Matthew is preparing for the “unusual circumstances” around Jesus’ birth–i.e., the virgin birth.  Why do they reject the theory that what binds these names together is that they are all Gentiles?  Because in the OT “Uriah is always called, Uriah the Hittite.”  Therefore, if Matthew intended a Gentile motif, he would have said, “Uriah the Hittite.”

I met this argument first several years ago in seminary and naively thought it had to be a dying idiosyncrasy because it was so obviously silly; but then recently reencountered it in a podcast by Dr. Mark Goodacre.  

I propose to put the “sexual indiscretion motif” to rest here and now.

Matthew does not need nor want to invite speculations of possible sexual indiscretion over Jesus’ birth.  There is no reason nor need for him to draw his reader’s attention to sexual scandals in order to “prepare” his reader for the unique circumstances of Jesus’s birth. That would be counterintuitive; he would basically be inviting readers to speculate that maybe Jesus was not born by the holy spirit, but was conceived naturally out of wedlock. Matthew obviously does not want readers to draw this conclusion.  Matthew explains Jesus’s birth by miracle, the Holy Spirit.  Thus if Matthew were to seek parallels for his story of a virgin birth among the OT, he would surely choose miraculous BIRTHS, like that of Sarah or Hannah, and not scandalous women, of whom at least two we are never told they gave birth.  Neither Rahab nor Ruth are said to have sex which results in pregnancy.  Rahab in the OT is identified as a prostitute; but we are not told she has sex and conceives.  Ruth “lies at the feet” of Boaz, and there is zero consensus among Hebraists what this means.

As for the argument against the Gentile motif, that Uriah is never simply called Uriah but always Uriah the Hittite, this is simply and embarrassingly false. Just read the book, the name Uriah occurs several times without the attending ethnic identifier.  It might also be noted that Bathsheba is never referred to as the x of Uriah but always the WIFE of Uriah (in Matthew’s Greek the word Bathsheba is not mentioned; all we have is a feminine article: “and David begot Solomon by the of Uriah”.  It would seem at least in this last instance that what mattered to Matthew was not Bathsheba but Uriah, whom everyone would have remembered was a Hittite, that is, a gentile.

So then, we have Tamar, a Gentile, Rahab, a Gentile, Ruth, a Gentile, and Uriah, a Gentile–all included in a Jewish genealogy of a Jewish Messiah.  Matthew is being very, very bold, in his constructed genealogy of the Jewish Messiah.