Was Rahab the Mother of Boaz?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 дек 2022
- Matthew 1:5 says that Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab. Does this mean Rahab was the mother of Boaz? We take a look at the purpose of genealogies in the Old and New Testament and answer whether Boaz was the son of Rahab.
#bible #genealogy #newtestament #oldtestament #jesus
Blog Article which deals with this issue: petergoeman.com/was-boaz-the-...
The Bible Sojourner Audio podcast: anchor.fm/the-bible-sojourner
More About the Host, Peter Goeman: petergoeman.com
Great teaching 🎉🎉 ..keep going kingdom warrior 😊
Appreciate it! Thank you!
Wonderful breakdown of an often difficult topic! Thank you for taking the time to share your research and believe you unraveled a lot of issues dealing with the history of Rahab!
Thanks for the encouragement! I’m so glad it was helpful for you!
Thanks for the info 🙏🏻
If the scripture says THROUGH Rahab, it could likely be saying she is an ancestor. A grandparent (or great-grandparent), would fit. She would also be mentioned to emphasize the importance of her story. Therefore, the math fits too.
Personally i view the genealogy as a secret message.
Every single name has a meaning.
It strings together very nicely.
Shalom
I appreciate you making that note. I think it unlikely that there are secret messages embedded genealogies. At least I have not seen anything to convince me of that. I’m willing to consider the evidence, I just see people go too far without evidence many times.
It could just be Rahab was a popular girls name at the time the mother of Boaz was born. I'm sure the Israelites would have regaled their children with her story and the designation of harlot could have been tavern keeper according to the Targum. That a female tavern keeper must, likewise, be a prostitute seems a leering assumption by men, ancient and modern.
Good thoughts!
That is a genuine possibility and can't be discounted out of hand. However, since the genealogies list Rahab without comment it would seem to be confusing if there were two prominent Rahab figures.
And as far as the Targum, it could be a gloss to help Rahab save face. The Hebrew is relatively clear about her position.
Boaz was the son of Salma (Salmon) and Rahab! This former prostitute became the wife of Salmon and the mother of Boaz in the royal ancestry of the Davidic kings.
Matthew 1:5: “Salmon became father to Boaz BY RAHAB.”
Not a different person with the same name.
Yes, that is perhaps the strongest evidence that we are dealing with the same Boaz in the genealogy of Matthew. However, as I noted in the video, it is likely there are gaps in that genealogy that are not recorded in Matthew.
The "Rachab" in Matthew 1:5 is NOT the Rahab the Harlot (the Canaanite) in Joshua 2:1. Some will say that Rachab is the Greek spelling of Rahab but in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25, the Rahab in those verses is actually Rahab the harlot of the Old Testament. Look it up, those two names have different Greek spelling. I could break this video down to dust and ashes but I'll leave you with this: the conquest of Jericho and Joshua's time and Rahab's time are around 1400 BCE. Salmon is King David's great-great grandfather. David took the throne in 1010 BCE, putting Salmon roughly 100 years older than David, so that's closer to 1100 BCE. Do you see where this is going? So, you're telling me that Rahab the harlot was 300 YEARS OLD when she allegedly birthed Boaz??? Make it make sense. In the KJV, the Rachab in Matthew 1:5 is a DIFFERENT WOMAN. And, and, for a P.S. moment, when the Israelites came and got Rahab the harlot and her family, they weren't allowed inside the camp, they were left outside the camp but allowed to stay in the land of Israel (Joshua 6:23). Oh, last thing, remember what Moses told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7:1-4? If you don't remember, here it is:
1When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
They were commanded to NOT make marriages with the Canaanites. 'Nuff said. Read your bibles.
Thanks for taking the time to interact, Troy. On your first point (there being different Greek renderings of Rahab in Matt 1 (Ῥαχάβ) and in Josh 2:1 (Ρααβ), it is actually very common in renderings of Greek to drop out the gutteral sound. One of the premier Greek Grammars of time past (BDF) states: "א ה ח ע were no expressed, with some exceptions (for ח א), χ appears" (sec 39, 3). Thus the name Rahab (רחב) fits perfectly within that small variation of using the gutteral (or not using it). It is by no means a different name.
Although I personally would love to see the video broken down to dust and ashes, it looks like we ended up agreeing after all. I don't think that Boaz was the son of Rahab (one evidence being the large amount of time between Rahab and Boaz's life). Where we differ is it seems you think they are different individuals. I just think it is an extended relationship (great great grandmother of sorts). Hope that helps! Appreciate you taking the time to sharpen us!
@@thebiblesojourner Thank you for your response, Mr. Sojourner. No where in the scriptures does it say Rahab the harlot was integrated into Israelite society. And as you suppose, she may be a great-great grandmother of sorts or somewhere in the lineage of Christ. What tribe of Judah man did she marry then? The bible is silent on that as well. The reason I said “dust and ashes” and no disrespect intended, is because the Israelites were commanded not to marry the Canaanites (Deut 7:3). So Salmon, a man of God, from the tribe of Judah, who raised a godly son in Boaz, just went and outrightly ignored that commandment and married a Canaanite? A 300-year-old Canaanite at that? If he didn’t marry Rahab, as you say we both agree on, then who did Salmon marry? The bible warns about adding and taking away from the scriptures. The bible says Salmon married Rachab and I believe it. Do you, sir?
@@thebiblesojourner Also, in the New Testament, the Greek spelling of Rahab in Heb. 11:31 and James 2:25 is, you guessed it, Ῥαάβ. So, Matt. 1:5, which is in the same New Testament, which was written in the same Greek language, should have the same spelling. But they don’t. Why? I think you already know, whether you admit it or not.
@@troybryan3418 Again, I think you make some valid and plausible points, Troy. It is possible they are different people (as I said in the video). I just don't think it is likely for a variety of reasons. In answer to your questions, Josh 6:25 seems to indicate that Rahab and her household assimilated into Israel. I suppose it is possible they only lived as sojourners without embracing Israelite identity, but since Israel always allowed proselytes, that would seem to be the case here as Rahab abandoned her affiliation with Canaan and embraced Israelite loyalty.
I do think Deut 7:3 is important, but if someone abandons their birth citizenship and becomes an Israelite, all indications are that they are now viewed as Israelite. For example, I have written an article on how Caleb is possibly a Canaanite who is descended from the Kenizzites (cf. Josh 14:6). So, whenever a Canaanite abandoned his land and people and joined himself to Israel he (or she) was considered an Israelite.
For clarification sake, I do think Salmon married Rahab/Rachab (just variant spellings). My only clarification is that I think Salmon and Rahab were the great great great grandparents of Boaz, not the father/mother of Boaz. Genealogies typically drop out a few generations here or there.
I like the way you are questioning things. Keep it up.
@@thebiblesojourner Thank you for your response. I’ve noticed that with modern day religion, there is a lot of “I think”, “I suppose,” “possibly,” but what does the bible say? The problem with using those words in excess when trying to break down what the scriptures are saying is you can make the scriptures say whatever you want to personally believe. Case in point, Matt.1:5, was Boaz and Ruth the parents of Obed? Or the grandparents? Or great, great, great grandparents? Trying to move what the scriptures clearly say in order to fit a narrative is being in confusion and 1 Cor. 14:33 says “For God is not the author of confusion…” Rahab and her family weren’t allowed in the camp (Jos. 6:23) but allowed to stay in the land (Jos. 6:25). After Jos. 6:25, there’s no more mention of Rahab in the OT, so her being assimilated into Israel, marry an Israelite, etc. etc. is all speculation not supported by the bible. And you just can’t come into someone’s birthright. There’s no grafting of the gentiles into becoming Israelites. That’s nowhere in the scriptures. What did Paul say about this? Romans 9:1-8: 1.I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, (2) That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. (3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my BRETHREN, my KINSMEN according to the FLESH: (4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the PROMISES; (5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (here’s the crescendo) (6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. FOR THEY ARE NOT ALL ISRAEL, which are of Israel: (7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED. ( Here it is) (8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the PROMISE are counted for the seed. The promises are only given to the Israelites (Romans 9:3). No offense meant with the all caps, I was just trying to emphasize a point, sir.