the Week of Proper 23 / Ordinary 28
Click here to join the effort!
Read the Bible
King James Version
Matthew 1:3
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- CondensedDevotionals:
- ChipParallel Translations
Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah. (Their mother was Tamar.) Perez was the father of Hezron. Hezron was the father of Ram.
Iudas begat Phares and zaram of Thamar: Phares begat Hesrom: Hesrom begat Aram:
Judah fathered Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez fathered Hezron, Hezron fathered Aram,Genesis 38:27; Ruth 4:18; 1 Chronicles 2:5,9;">[xr]
Judah fathered Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez fathered Hezron, and Hezron fathered Ram.
Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah. (Their mother was Tamar.) Perez was the father of Hezron. Hezron was the father of Ram.
and Judah begot Perez and Zerah from Tamar; and Perez begot Hezron; and Hezron begot Ram;
And Judah begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram.
and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram,
Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron. Hezron became the father of Ram.
And Judah begat Pharez and Zarah of Thamar, and Pharez begat Esrom, and Esrom begat Aram;
Judah was the father (by Tamar) of Perez and Zerah; Perez of Hezron; Hezron of Ram;
Judas bigat Fares and Zaram, of Tamar. Fares bigat Esrom.
and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;
Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram.
and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;
And the sons of Judah were Perez and Zerah by Tamar; and the son of Perez was Hezron; and the son of Hezron was Ram;
Y'hudah was the father of Peretz and Zerach (their mother was Tamar), Peretz was the father of Hetzron, Hetzron was the father of Ram,
and Juda begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom, and Esrom begat Aram,
Jehuda begat Pharets and Zoroch from Thomar. Pharets begat Hetsron, Hetsron begat Arom,
Judah begat Pharez and Zara of Tamar: Pharez begat Hezron: Hezron begat Ram:
And Iudas begate Phares and Zara of Thamar, and Phares begate Esrom, and Esrom begate Aram.
Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah (whose mother was Tamar). Perez was the father of Hezron. Hezron was the father of Ram.
Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah. Their mother was Tamar. Perez was the father of Hezron. Hezron was the father of Aram.
and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Aram,
And Iudas begate Phares, and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begate Esrom. And Esrom begate Aram.
Judah begot Perez and Zerah of his wife Tamar; Perez begot Hezron; Hezron begot Aram;
And Judah begat Perez and Zarah of Tamah, and Perez begat Hezron, and Hezron begat Ram;
And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram.
and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram,
Iudas begat Phares, and Zara of Thamar, Phares begat Esrom, Esrom begat Aram.
Judah fathered Perez and Zerah by Tamar,
Yehudah became the father of Peretz and Zerach by Tamar. Peretz became the father of Hetzron. Hetzron became the father of Ram.
and Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez became the father of Hezron, and Hezron became the father of Aram,
And Judah fathered Pharez and Zarah out of Tamar, and Pharez fathered Hezron, and Hezron fathered Aram,
and Judah begat Pharez and Zarah of Tamar, and Pharez begat Hezron, and Hezron begat Ram,
Iudas begat Phares & Zara of Thamar: Phares begat Hesrom: Hesrom begat Aram:
And Judas the father of Phares and Zara by Thamar, and Phares the father of Esrom, Esrom the father of Aram.
Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,
Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram.
Judah was Perez and Zerah's daddy (Tamar was their momma). Perez was Hezron's daddy.Hezron was Ram's daddy.
Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram.
And Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron was the father of Ram.
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
Judas: Genesis 38:27, Genesis 38:29, Genesis 38:30, Genesis 46:12, Judah, Pharez, Zarah, Numbers 26:20, Numbers 26:21, 1 Chronicles 2:3, 1 Chronicles 2:4, Zerah, 1 Chronicles 9:6
Thamar: Genesis 38:6, Genesis 38:11, Genesis 38:24-26, Tamar
and Phares: Genesis 46:12, Numbers 26:21, Ruth 4:18, 1 Chronicles 2:5, 1 Chronicles 4:1, Hezron, Luke 3:33
Aram: Ruth 4:19, 1 Chronicles 2:9, Ram
Reciprocal: Ruth 4:12 - whom Nehemiah 11:4 - Perez Nehemiah 11:24 - Zerah Luke 3:32 - was the son of Jesse Hebrews 7:14 - sprang
Cross-References
Behold, he spreadeth his light upon it, and covereth the bottom of the sea.
Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
God is the Lord , which hath shewed us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar.
Let them praise the name of the Lord : for he commanded, and they were created.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.
Gill's Notes on the Bible
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar,.... The genealogical account of Christ goes on from Judah in the line of Phares, with whom Zara is mentioned; not because they were twins, for so were Jacob and Esau, and yet the latter is taken no notice of; but it may be because of what happened at their birth, see
Genesis 38:28. But the line of the Messiah was in Phares, and very rightly is he put in the genealogy of Christ, the Jews themselves being witnesses; who expressly say, that "the Messiah comes from him." These two are said to be begotten of Thamar, daughter-in-law to Judah; who, though she was a Canaanitish woman, has the honour to be named in the genealogy of Christ, who came to save Gentiles as well as Jews: nor can the Jews reproach our Evangelist for putting her into the account; since they themselves frequently acknowledge that the Messiah was to spring from her: they say, r
"there are two women from whom come David the king, and Solomon, and the king Messiah; and these two are Thamar and Ruth.''
Jonathan Ben Uzziel on Genesis 38:6 says, that Thamar was the daughter of Shem the great.
And Phares begat Esrom; called Hezron, Ruth 4:18 where the same phrase is used as here. He had another son called Hamul, 1 Chronicles 2:5 but the account proceeds from Phares, in the line of Esrom.
And Esrom begat Aram; called Ram in Ruth 4:18 where the same way of speaking is used as here. Esrom also besides him begat Jerahmeel, Chelubai, or Caleb, and Segub, 1 Chronicles 2:9 but these are not in the line. Elihu, who conversed with Job, is said to be of the kindred of Ram, Job 32:2 whether the same with Ram or Aram, may be inquired.
r Shemot Rabba, sect. 30. fol. 131. 4. Caphtor, fol. 122. 1.
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.
Clarke's Notes on the Bible
Verse Matthew 1:3. Phares and Zara — The remarkable history of these twins may be seen, Genesis 38:0: Some of the ancients were of opinion, that the evangelist refers to the mystery of the youngest being preferred to the eldest, as prefiguring the exaltation of the Christian Church over the synagogue. Concerning the women whose names are recorded in this genealogy, see the note at the end of the chapter.
