Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 7
Matthew highlights Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “her of Uriah”—women with disreputable pasts—so early Christians saw a deliberate message about Jesus welcoming grievous sinners with repentance required; what parts of that message comfort you, and what parts unsettle you if you apply it to the kinds of sinners you most instinctively avoid?
Another way to ask: Matthew names women with messy pasts to show Jesus welcomes serious sinners who repent—what about that comforts you? What part makes you uneasy when you think about the kinds of sinners you tend to avoid?

Direct Answer Bercot’s teaching suggests the comfort is that Jesus openly welcomes people with terrible backgrounds into His story, but the unsettling part is that this grace reaches the very kinds of people we might prefer to keep at a distance—while still demanding repentance and a changed life.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says the significance is not women being named, but “why did Matthew pick those four women?”
  • Tamar: “dressed up as a prostitute” and “lay with her own father-in-law,” described as “horrific,” yet “she is in the line of Jesus.”
  • Rahab: “she was a harlot.” Ruth: “an idol worshiper at one time.” Bathsheba is unnamed: “By her of Uriah,” highlighting adultery and shame.
  • Early Christian conclusion: Matthew chose them “to show that Jesus was reaching out to sinners.”
  • Bercot cites Jesus’ stance: “tax collectors and harlots will enter the kingdom of God ahead of you.”
  • He balances grace with demand: “Repentance was required, of course, a change of life.”
  • Examples of Jesus’ circle: “a tax collector among his 12 apostles” and Mary Magdalene “possessed of demons.”
Discussion Follow-ups Who are today’s “disreputable” people that churches might quietly prefer not to include, and how would Matthew’s genealogy confront that?