the Week of Proper 23 / Ordinary 28
Click here to join the effort!
Read the Bible
King James Version
Matthew 1:10
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- CondensedDevotionals:
- EveryParallel Translations
Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon. Amon was the father of Josiah.
Ezechias begat Manasses: Manasses begat Amon: Amon begat Iosias:
Hezekiah fathered Manasseh, Manasseh fathered Amos,Amon">[fn] and AmosAmon">[fn] fathered Josiah.2 Kings 20:21; 1 Chronicles 3:13;">[xr]
Hezekiah fathered Manasseh, Manasseh fathered Amon, and Amon fathered Josiah.
Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon. Amon was the father of Josiah.
and Hezekiah begot Manasseh; and Manasseh begot Amos; and Amos begot Josiah;
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah.
and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah,
Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh. Manasseh became the father of Amon. Amon became the father of Josiah.
And Hezekiah begat Manasseh, and Manasseh begat Amon, and Amon begat Josiah;
Hezekiah of Manasseh; Manasseh of Amon; Amon of Josiah;
Ezechie bigat Manasses. Manasses bigat Amon.
and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amos, Amos the father of Josiah,
and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
And the son of Hezekiah was Manasseh; and the son of Manasseh was Amon; and the son of Amon was Josiah;
Hizkiyahu was the father of M'nasheh, M'nasheh was the father of Amon, Amon was the father of Yoshiyahu,
and Ezekias begat Manasses, and Manasses begat Amon, and Amon begat Josias,
Hezakia begat Menasha, Menasha begat Amun, Amun begat Jushia,
Hezekiah begat Manasseh: Manasseh begat Amon: Amon begat Josiah:
And Ezekias begate Manasses, and Manasses begate Amon, and Amon begate Iosias.
Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon. Amon was the father of Josiah.
Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon. Amon was the father of Josiah.
and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah,
And Ezekias begate Manasses. And Manasses begate Amon. And Amon begate Iosias.
Hezekiah begot Manasseh; Manasseh begot Amon; Amon begot Josiah;
And Hezekiah begat Manasseh, and Manasseh begat Amon, and Amon begat Josiah;
And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manasses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias.
and Hezeki'ah the father of Manas'seh, and Manas'seh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josi'ah,
Ezekias begat Manasses, Manasses begat Amon, Amon begat Iosias.
Hezekiah fathered Manasseh,
Hizkiyahu became the father of Menashsheh. Menashsheh became the father of Amon. Amon became the father of Yoshiyahu.
and Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh became the father of Amon, and Amon became the father of Josiah,
and Hezekiah fathered Manasseh, and Manasseh fathered Amon, and Amon fathered Josiah,
and Hezekiah begat Manasseh, and Manasseh begat Amon, and Amon begat Josiah,
Ezechias begat Manasses: Manasses begat Amon: Amon begat Iosias:
Ezekias the father of Manasses, Manasses the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josias.
The family tree of Jesus Christ, David's son, Abraham's son: Abraham had Isaac, Isaac had Jacob, Jacob had Judah and his brothers, Judah had Perez and Zerah (the mother was Tamar), Perez had Hezron, Hezron had Aram, Aram had Amminadab, Amminadab had Nahshon, Nahshon had Salmon, Salmon had Boaz (his mother was Rahab), Boaz had Obed (Ruth was the mother), Obed had Jesse, Jesse had David, and David became king. David had Solomon (Uriah's wife was the mother), Solomon had Rehoboam, Rehoboam had Abijah, Abijah had Asa, Asa had Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat had Joram, Joram had Uzziah, Uzziah had Jotham, Jotham had Ahaz, Ahaz had Hezekiah, Hezekiah had Manasseh, Manasseh had Amon, Amon had Josiah, Josiah had Jehoiachin and his brothers, and then the people were taken into the Babylonian exile. When the Babylonian exile ended, Jeconiah had Shealtiel, Shealtiel had Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel had Abiud, Abiud had Eliakim, Eliakim had Azor, Azor had Zadok, Zadok had Achim, Achim had Eliud, Eliud had Eleazar, Eleazar had Matthan, Matthan had Jacob, Jacob had Joseph, Mary's husband, the Mary who gave birth to Jesus, the Jesus who was called Christ. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, another fourteen from David to the Babylonian exile, and yet another fourteen from the Babylonian exile to Christ. The birth of Jesus took place like this. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. Before they came to the marriage bed, Joseph discovered she was pregnant. (It was by the Holy Spirit, but he didn't know that.) Joseph, chagrined but noble, determined to take care of things quietly so Mary would not be disgraced. While he was trying to figure a way out, he had a dream. God's angel spoke in the dream: "Joseph, son of David, don't hesitate to get married. Mary's pregnancy is Spirit-conceived. God's Holy Spirit has made her pregnant. She will bring a son to birth, and when she does, you, Joseph, will name him Jesus—‘God saves'—because he will save his people from their sins." This would bring the prophet's embryonic sermon to full term: Watch for this—a virgin will get pregnant and bear a son; They will name him Immanuel (Hebrew for "God is with us"). Then Joseph woke up. He did exactly what God's angel commanded in the dream: He married Mary. But he did not consummate the marriage until she had the baby. He named the baby Jesus.
Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah,
Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, [fn] and Amon begot Josiah.
Hezekiah was Manasseh's daddy. Manasseh was Amon's daddy.Amon was Josiah's daddy.
Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah.
And Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh was the father of Amon, and Amon was the father of Josiah.
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
Manasses: 2 Kings 20:21, 2 Kings 21:1-18, 2 Kings 24:3, 2 Kings 24:4, 1 Chronicles 3:13-15, 2 Chronicles 32:33, 2 Chronicles 33:1-19, Manasseh
Amon: 2 Kings 21:19-26, 2 Chronicles 33:20-24
Josias: 1 Kings 13:2, 2 Kings 21:26, 2 Kings 22:1-20, 2 Kings 23:1-30, 2 Chronicles 33:25, 2 Chronicles 34:1-33, 2 Chronicles 35:1-27, Jeremiah 1:2, Jeremiah 1:3, Josiah
Reciprocal: 2 Samuel 15:26 - General 2 Kings 18:1 - Hezekiah 1 Chronicles 3:14 - Josiah 2 Chronicles 29:1 - Hezekiah
Cross-References
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works.
Gill's Notes on the Bible
And Ezekias begat Manasses,.... Or Manasseh, 2 Kings 20:21. Him Hezekiah begat of Hephzibah, 2 Kings 21:1. He was very remarkable both for his sins, and for his humiliation on account of them.
And Manasses begat Amon, of Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah, 2 Kings 21:19. He was a very wicked prince.
And Amon begat Josias, or Josiah of Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath, 2 Kings 22:1. He was a very pious king, and was prophesied of by name some hundreds of years before he was born,
1 Kings 13:2.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
These verses contain the genealogy of Jesus. Luke also Luke 3:0 gives a genealogy of the Messiah. No two passages of Scripture have caused more difficulty than these, and various attempts have been made to explain them. There are two sources of difficulty in these catalogues.
- Many names that are found in the Old Testament are here omitted; and,
- The tables of Matthew and Luke appear in many points to be different.
From Adam to Abraham Matthew has mentioned no names, and Luke only has given the record. From Abraham to David the two tables are alike. Of course there is no difficulty in reconciling these two parts of the tables. The difficulty lies in that part of the genealogy from David to Christ. There they are entirely different. They are manifestly different lines. Not only are the names different, but Luke has mentioned, in this part of the genealogy, no less than 42 names, while Matthew has recorded only 27 names.
Various ways have been proposed to explain this difficulty, but it must be admitted that none of them is perfectly satisfactory. It does not comport with the design of these notes to enter minutely into an explanation of the perplexities of these passages. All that can be done is to suggest the various ways in which attempts have been made to explain them.
1. It is remarked that in nothing are mistakes more likely to occur than in such tables. From the similarity of names, and the different names by which the same person is often called, and from many other causes, errors would be more likely to creep into genealogical tables than in other writings. Some of the difficulties may have possibly occurred from this cause.
2. Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. They were both descended from David, but in different lines. This solution derives some plausibility from the fact that the promise was made to David, and as Jesus was not the son of Joseph, it was important to show that Mary was also descended from him. But though this solution is plausible, and may be true, yet it wants evidence. It cannot, however, be proved that this was not the design of Luke.
3. It has been said also that Joseph was the legal son and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and that thus the two lines terminated in him. This was the explanation suggested by most of the Christian fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory. It was a law of the Jews that if a man died without children, his brother should marry his widow. Thus the two lines might have been intermingled, According to this solution, which was first proposed by Africanus, Matthan, descended from Solomon, married Estha, of whom was born Jacob. After Matthan’s death, Matthat being of the same tribe, but of another family, married his widow, and of this marriage Heli was born. Jacob and Heli were therefore children of the same mother. Heli dying without children, his brother Jacob married his widow, and begat Joseph, who was thus the legal son of Heli. This is agreeable to the account in the two evangelists. Matthew says that Jacob begat Joseph; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, i. e., was his legal heir, or was reckoned in law to be his son. This can be seen by the plan on the next page, showing the nature of the connection.
Though these solutions may not seem to be entirely satisfactory, yet there are two additional considerations which should set the matter at rest, and lead to the conclusion that the narratives are not really inconsistent.
1. No difficulty was ever found, or alleged, in regard to them, by any of the early enemies of Christianity. There is no evidence that they ever adduced them as containing a contradiction. Many of those enemies were acute, learned, and able; and they show by their writings that they were not indisposed to detect all the errors that could possibly be found in the sacred narrative. Now it is to be remembered that the Jews were fully competent to show that these tables were incorrect, if they were really so; and it is clear that they were fully disposed, if possible, to do it. The fact, therefore, that it is not done, is clear evidence that they thought it to be correct. The same may be said of the acute pagans who wrote against Christianity. None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct.
2. The evangelists are not responsible for the correctness of these tables. They are responsible only for what was their real and professed object to do. What was that object? It was to prove to the satisfaction of the Jews that Jesus was descended from David, and therefore that there was no argument from his ancestry that he was not the promised Messiah. Now to make this out, it was not necessary, nor would it have conduced to their argument, to have formed a new table of genealogy. All that could be done was to go to the family records - to the public tables, and copy them as they were actually kept, and show that, according to the records of the nation, Jesus was descended from David. This, among the Jews, would be full and decided testimony in the case. And this was doubtless done. In the same way, the records of a family among us, as they are kept by the family, are proof in courts of justice now of the birth, names, etc., of individuals. Nor is it necessary or proper for a court to call them in question or to attempt to correct them. So, the tables here are good evidence to the only point that the writers wished to establish: that is, to show to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was descended from David. The only inquiry which can now be fairly made is whether they copied those tables correctly. It is clear that no man can prove that they did not so copy them, and therefore that no one can adduce them as an argument against the correctness of the New Testament.
