THE SILENCES OF SCRIPTURE. 



83 



enough to require a separate book ? Was it necessary that the 

 grievous sin of David should have been told with such 

 circumstantial detail about the partner of his guilt ? 



The very first chapter of the Gospel history shows the need 

 there was for being sure that an accurate record had been kept 

 of the families in Israel, so that there could be no doubt that the 

 Carpenter of Nazareth was actually the heir to the throne. In 

 the list of Joseph's ancestors there given, four women and only 

 four, are named or alluded to, and these are Tamar, Rahab, 

 Ruth, and Bathsheba. Why are these singled out for mention ? 

 Tamar was probably, and Rahab certainly, of Canaanite origin : 

 Ruth was a Moabitess, and Bathsheba married to a Hittite, 

 a fact brought into prominence by her being described as " the 

 wife of Uriah " without giving her name. Further, three out 

 of the four were sinful. Were there no good and faithful Israelite 

 women among the ancestors of the Christ that only these four 

 should be thought worthy of notice ? Here is a remarkable 

 instance of silence : the pure mothers of the chosen race passed 

 over unnamed, and only those to whom discredit attached 

 included. There must be purpose in this, and what can it be ? 

 Surely it can only be to indicate that this " Son of David," 

 whose lineage was smirched by these terrible blots, came not 

 for the sake of the righteous and the chosen people alone, but 

 that His mission was to the sinner and the alien as well. 



But then, how came it that these four narratives (and it is 

 to be remembered that they come from four different sources) 

 were included, and more than that made so emphatically remark- 

 able, in the ancient books when so much that, humanly speaking, 

 would be considered more important was disregarded ? Was it 

 mere chance that these seemingly irrelevant details were preserved 

 in the records, and only seized on by the Evangelist in order to 

 impart to them a significance which was not really theirs ? Against 

 this there is, first, the prominence they are accorded in the old 

 books ; and, secondly, the use the Evangelist has made of them. 

 He has not drawn out and made clear their true significance, 

 as he has done some of the prophecies, but inserted them in 

 such unassuming fashion that they escape notice without careful 

 scrutiny. The only rational conclusion is that these incidents 

 were purposely inserted and made so noticeable in the early 

 writings because of the importance which would attach to them 

 many centuries later, and that demands a foreknowledge and a 

 preparation for the distant future far beyond human insight. 



