Matthew 1:8

And Asa begat Josaphat,.... Called Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings 15:24 whom Asa begat of Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi, 1 Kings 22:42. He also was a very good prince.

And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias (or Uzziah).

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; he reigned twenty-five years, . Jehoram, here called Joram, succeeded him in his kingdom: he slew his brethren; he walked in the ways of Ahab. ,6; he reigned but eight years, lived and died wickedly, and was buried infamously, ,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; then Athaliah usurped the kingdom for six years, not counting her usurpation. Joash the son of Ahaziah reigned forty years, . He dies, and Amaziah his son reigned in his stead, . He was the father of Uzziah, , called Azariah, . So that when it is said, that Joram begat Ozias, we must only understand that Uzziah lineally descended from Joram: thus, , 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, . 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 . 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, ; Joash her grandchild; Amaziah her great grandchild. Now God had cursed the house of Ahab, and threatened to root out all his house, .

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; Ver. 8. And Asa begat Josaphat] A godly king, but late witted, and therefore paid for his learning twice at least in holy history. One thing in the narration of his acts is very remarkable. He placed forces in all the fenced cities; yet it is not said thereupon that the fear of the Lord fell on the neighbouring nations. But when he had established a preaching ministry in all the cities, then his enemies feared and made no war, 2 Chronicles 17:10. Solidissima regiae politiae basis (saith Paradinus in Symbolis) est verum Dei cultum ubivis stabilire: alias qui potest aut Deus Reges beare, a quibus negligitur; aut populus fideliter colere, qui de obsequio suo non recte instituitur? The ordinances of God are the beauty and bulwark of a place and people. And Josaphat begat Joram] That lived undesired and died unlamented. While he lived there was no use of him, and when he died, no miss of him: no more than of the paring of the nails or sweeping of the house (περιψηματα). He lived wickedly, and died wishedly, as it is said of King Edwin (Daniel’ s Hist.). And Joram begat Ozias] Here Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are written in the earth, not once set down in the roll: perhaps it was because they were imped in the wicked family of Ahab. This Uzziah, though a king, yet he loved husbandry, 2 Chronicles 26:10. Thrift is the fuel of magnificence. He was at length a leper, yet still remained a king. Infirmities may deform us, they cannot dethrone us. The English laws (saith Camden, Elizabeth) pronounce, that the crown once worn quite taketh away all defects whatsoever: sure it is that when God once crowns a man with his grace and favour, that man is out of harm’ s way for ever.

Verse 8. Joram begat Ozias] This is the Uzziah, king of Judah, who was struck with the leprosy for his presumption in entering the temple to offer incense before the Lord. See 2 Chronicles 26:16, c. Ozias was not the immediate son of Joram: there were three kings between them, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which swell the fourteen generations to seventeen: but it is observed that omissions of this kind are not uncommon in the Jewish genealogies. In Ezra 7:3, Azariah is called the son of Meraioth, although it is evident, from 1 Chronicles 6:7-9, that there were six descendants between them. This circumstance the evangelist was probably aware of but did not see it proper to attempt to correct what he found in the public accredited genealogical tables; as he knew it to be of no consequence to his argument, which was merely to show that Jesus Christ as surely descended, in an uninterrupted line from David, as David did from Abraham. And this he has done in the most satisfactory manner; nor did any person in those days pretend to detect any inaccuracy in his statement; though the account was published among those very people whose interest it was to expose the fallacy, in vindication of their own obstinate rejection of the Messiah, if any such fallacy could have been proved. But as they were silent, modern and comparatively modern unbelievers may for ever hold their peace. The objections raised on this head are worthy of no regard; yet the following statement deserves notice. St. Matthew took up the genealogies just as he found them in the public Jewish records, which, though they were in the main correct, yet were deficient in many particulars. The Jews themselves give us sufficient proof of this. The Talmud, title Kiddushim, mentions ten classes of persons who returned from the Babylonish captivity: I. כהני COHANEY, priests. II. לוי LEVEY, Levites. III. ישראל YISHRAEL, Israelites. IV. חלולי CHULULEY, common persons, as to the priesthood; such whose fathers were priests, but their mothers were such as the priests should not marry. V. גירי GIREY, proselytes. VI. חרורי CHARUREY, freed-men, or servants who had been liberated by their masters. VII. ממזירי MAMZIREY, spurious, such as were born in unlawful wedlock. VIII. נתיני NETHINEY, Nethinim. IX. שתוקי SHETUKEY, bastards, persons whose mothers, though well known, could not ascertain the fathers of their children, because of their connections with different men. X. אסופי ASUPHEY, such as were gathered up out of the streets, whose fathers and mothers were utterly unknown. Such was the heterogeneous mass brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem; and although we learn from the Jews, that great care was taken to separate the spurious from the true-born Israelites, and canons were made for that purpose, yet it so happened, that sometimes a spurious family had got into high authority, and therefore must not be meddled with. See several cases in Lightfoot. On this account, a faithful genealogist would insert in his roll such only as were indisputable.

8. Joram begat Ozias (Uzziah)] The names of Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah are here omitted; see note, Matthew 1:17.