Select Commentary| Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible| 太| Chapter 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
Total 25 verses in Chapter 1: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
8 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 , &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 ,

Azariah is called the son of Meraioth, although it is evident,

from ,

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. COHANEY, priests. II. LEVEY,

Levites. III. YISHRAEL, Israelites. IV.

CHULULEY, common persons, as to the priesthood; such whose fathers

were priests, but their mothers were such as the priests should

not marry. V. GIREY, proselytes. VI. CHARUREY,

freed-men, or servants who had been liberated by their masters.

VII. MAMZIREY, spurious, such as were born in unlawful

wedlock. VIII. NETHINEY, Nethinim. IX.

SHETUKEY, bastards, persons whose mothers, though well known,

could not ascertain the fathers of their children, because of

their connections with different men. X. 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.