Matthew 1:8

Matthew 1:8 . And Joram begat Ozias — By Ozias, Uzziah is intended, and it is certain from the history of the Kings and Chronicles that he was the son of Amaziah, 2 Chronicles 26:1 ; Amaziah, of Joash, ch. Matthew 24:27 ; Joash, of Ahaziah, ch. Matthew 22:11 ; and Ahaziah, of Jehoram. But, according to the language of the Hebrews, the children of children are reputed the sons or daughters, not only of their immediate parents, but of their ancestors, and these ancestors are said to beget those who are removed some generations from them. Thus Isaiah says to Hezekiah, Of thy sons which thou shalt beget shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon: which prediction was not fulfilled until the days of Jeconiah, long after the days of Hezekiah. But it will be asked, why these three in particular are left out of the catalogue? The best answer to this question seems to be, that the evangelist followed the Jewish tables in writing this list, and that he found them left out in these. But if he himself, though he found them in the tables, omitted their names, it must, as Dr. Doddridge observes, have been “by some peculiar divine direction, that the sin of Jehoram is thus animadverted upon, even to the fourth generation, his intermediate descendants being thus blotted out of the records of Christ’s family, and overlooked as if they had never been.”

7-8. And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8. And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias—or Uzziah. Three kings are here omitted—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (1Ch 3:11, 12). Some omissions behooved to be made, to compress the whole into three fourteens (Mt 1:17). The reason why these, rather than other names, are omitted, must be sought in religious considerations—either in the connection of those kings with the house of Ahab (as Lightfoot, Ebrard, and Alford view it); in their slender right to be regarded as true links in the theocratic chain (as Lange takes it); or in some similar disqualification.

Matthew 1:8 . Ἰωρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ὀζίαν , but Joram begat Josiah ) Ahaziah (who is the same as the Joahaz of 2 Chronicles 21:17 ; 2 Chronicles 22:1 ), Joash, and Amaziah (mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 ), are here passed over: so that the word ἐγέννησε ( begat ) must be understood mediately [9] instead of immediately: as frequently happens with the word ΥἹΌς ( son ), as in the first verse of this chapter, where our Lord is called the Son of David, who was His remote ancestor. In like manner Joram is here said to have begotten Josiah, who was his great-grandson,—that is to say, he was his progenitor. Thus, by referring to 1 Chronicles 6:7-9 , we find, that six generations are left out in Ezra 7:3 , between Azariah and Meraioth. St Matthew omitted the three kings in question, not because he was ignorant of their having existed (since the whole context proves his familiar acquaintance with his subject), but because they were well known to all: nor did he do so with any fraudulent intention, since, by increasing the number of generations, he would have confirmed the notion that the Messiah must have already appeared. Nor did he omit them on account of their impiety, for he has mentioned other impious men, as e.g. Jechonias, and him with especial consideration, and he has passed over several pious ones.

But, as in describing roads and ways, it is necessary to be especially careful with regard to those points where they branch off in different directions, whereas a straight road may be found without any such direction, so does St Matthew in this genealogy point out with particular care those who have had brothers , and who, in contradistinction to them, have propagated the stem of the Messiah. He has indeed carried this so far that, having a reason[10] for not naming Jehoiakim, he has assigned his brothers to his only son; whilst he has passed over, without inconvenience, Joash, who was the only link[11] in his generation, together with his father and son. Furthermore, as in geography the distances of places from each other are, without any violence to truth, described sometimes by longer, sometimes by shorter stages,—so is it with the successive steps of generations in a pedigree; nor is the practice of Hebrew genealogists an exception to the general custom in this matter. The writers of the New Testament are accustomed also rather to imply than assert circumstances already well known on the authority of the Old Testament, and not liable to be mistaken, employing a brevity as congenial to the ardour of the Spirit, as desirable on other grounds.—See Gnomon on Acts 7:16 . Oziah was previously called Azariah, but by the omission of one Hebrew letter ( ר , R) his name becomes Oziah. [9] i.e. , There being mediate or intervening persons.—ED [10] See Jeremiah 22:30 .—(I.

Jehoshaphat, here called Josaphat, in the Greek, (they having no letter to express the Hebrew h by), was the son of Asa, a good son of a good father, 2 Chronicles 17:1,2 ; he reigned twenty-five years, 1 Kings 22:42 . Jehoram, here called Joram, succeeded him in his kingdom: he slew his brethren; he walked in the ways of Ahab. 2 Chronicles 21:4,6 ; he reigned but eight years, lived and died wickedly, and was buried infamously, 2 Chronicles 21:19,20 . But here ariseth another difficulty from what is said, Joram begat Ozias. It is certain that he did not beget him immediately, for Uzziah was the fourth from Joram. Jehoram or Joram begat Ahaziah, he was his youngest son; he lived but one year as king, 2 Chronicles 22:1,2 ; then Athaliah usurped the kingdom for six years, not counting her usurpation. Joash the son of Ahaziah reigned forty years, 2 Chronicles 24:1 . He dies, and Amaziah his son reigned in his stead, 2 Kings 12:21 . He was the father of Uzziah, 2 Chronicles 26:1 , called Azariah, 2 Kings 14:21 . So that when it is said, that Joram begat Ozias, we must only understand that Uzziah lineally descended from Joram: thus, Matthew 1:1 , Christ is called the Son of David, the son of Abraham. Thus the Jews said: We have Abraham to our father; and Elisabeth is said to be of the daughters of Aaron, Luke 1:5 . But it is a greater question why the evangelist leaves out Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, who were all three lawful princes, and rightly descended from the family of David

. To pass by various conjectures, the best account I find given of it is this. 1. It is manifest the evangelist had a design to divide all the generations from Abraham to Christ into three periods. The first of which should contain the growing state of the Jewish commonwealth, till it came at the height, which was in David’s time. The second should contain its flourishing state; which was from David’s time till the first carrying into captivity. The third should contain its declining state, from the first carrying them into captivity to the coming of Christ. 2. He designed to reduce all the generations in each period to fourteen; this appeareth from Matthew 1:17 . Now although the first period contained exactly fourteen descents or generations, yet in the second there was manifestly seventeen, so as the evangelist was obliged to leave out three to bring them to the number of fourteen: now though it be a little too curious to inquire why the evangelist chose to leave out these three, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, rather than any other three, yet there is a probable good account of it given by learned men, who have waded into these speculations. Ahaziah was the son of Jehoram by Athaliah the daughter of Ahab, 2 Chronicles 21:6 ; Joash her grandchild; Amaziah her great grandchild. Now God had cursed the house of Ahab, and threatened to root out all his house, 1 Kings 21:21 .

Matthew 1:8 . Ἰορὰμ … Ὀζίαν ] Three kings, Ahaziah, Joaz, and Amazia, are wanting between these ( 2 Kings 8:24 ; 1 Chronicles 3:11 ; 2 Chronicles 22:1 ; 2 Chronicles 22:11 ; 2 Chronicles 24:27 ). The common opinion is that of Jerome, that the omission was made for the sake of obtaining an equal division of the names, in order not to go beyond the three Tesseradecades. Such omissions were nothing unusual: 1 Chronicles 8:1 ; Genesis 46:21 . See Surenhusius, βιβλ . καταλλ . p. 97. Lightfoot, Hor . p. 181. On the same phenomenon in the Book of Enoch, see Ewald in the Kieler Monatschrift , 1852, p. 520 f. The evangelist accepted the genealogical list without alteration, just as he found it; and the cause of that omission cannot be pointed out, but probably was only, and that without special design, the similarity of those names, in which way the omission also which occurs in Matthew 1:11 is to be explained. Ebrard and Riggenbach, erroneously introducing the point of view of theocratic illegality (comp. Lange), are of opinion that Matthew omitted the three kings for this reason, that Joram, on account of his marriage with the daughter of Jezebel, and of his conduct, had deserved that his posterity should be exterminated down to the fourth generation (so already some of the Fathers, Maldonatus, Spanheim, Lightfoot); that Matthew accordingly declared the descendants of the heathen Jezebel, down to the fourth generation, unworthy of succeeding to the theocratic throne.