Search the Bible
* powered by Bible Study Tools

Matthew 1:8

    Matthew 1:8 Translations

    King James Version (KJV)

    And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

    American King James Version (AKJV)

    And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

    American Standard Version (ASV)

    and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;

    Basic English Translation (BBE)

    And the son of Asa was Jehoshaphat; and the son of Jehoshaphat was Joram; and the son of Joram was Uzziah;

    Webster's Revision

    and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;

    World English Bible

    Asa became the father of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat became the father of Joram. Joram became the father of Uzziah.

    English Revised Version (ERV)

    and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;

    Definitions for Matthew 1:8

    Begat - To bear; to bring forth.

    Clarke's Commentary on Matthew 1:8

    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, etc. 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. "It is therefore easy to guess," says Dr. Lightfoot, "whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this genealogy, and Luke the first forty names of his: namely, from the genealogical rolls, at that time well known, and laid up in the public κειμηλια, repositories, and in the private also. And it was necessary indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by the Jewish people, as the lineage of the Messiah would be, that the evangelists should deliver a truth, not only that could not be gainsayed, but also might be proved and established from certain and undoubted rolls of ancestors." See Horae Talmudicae.

    Wesley's Notes on Matthew 1:8

    1:8 Jehoram begat Uzziah - Jehoahaz, Joash, and Amaziah coming between. So that he begat him mediately, as Christ is mediately the son of David and of Abraham. So the progeny of Hezekiah, after many generations, are called the sons that should issue from him, which he should beget, Isaiah 39:7.