the Week of Proper 23 / Ordinary 28
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Read the Bible
King James Version
Matthew 1:4
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- CondensedDevotionals:
- EveryParallel Translations
Ram was the father of Amminadab. Amminadab was the father of Nahshon. Nahshon was the father of Salmon.
Aram begat Aminadab: Aminadab begat Naasson: Naasson begat Salmon:
Aram fathered Aminidab, Aminidab fathered Nahshon, and Nahshon fathered Salmon.
Ram fathered Amminadab, Amminadab fathered Nahshon, and Nahshon fathered Salmon.
Ram was the father of Amminadab. Amminadab was the father of Nahshon. Nahshon was the father of Salmon.
and Ram begot Amminadab; and Amminadab begot Nahshon; and Nahshon begot Salmon;
And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
Ram was the father of Aminadab, Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.
and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Ram became the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon. Nahshon became the father of Salmon.
And Aram begat Aminadab, and Aminadab begat Naasson, and Naasson begat Salmon;
Ram of Amminadab; Amminadab of Nahshon; Nahshon of Salmon;
Esrom bigat Aram. Aram bigat Amynadab. Amynadab bigat Naason. Naason bigat Salmon.
and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;
Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.
and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;
And the son of Ram was Amminadab; and the son of Amminadab was Nahshon; and the son of Nahshon was Salmon;
Ram was the father of ‘Amminadav, ‘Amminadav was the father of Nachshon, Nachshon was the father of Salmon,
and Aram begat Aminadab, and Aminadab begat Naasson, and Naasson begat Salmon,
Arom begat Aminodob, Aminodob begat Nachshun, Nachshun begat Salmun,
Ram begat Aminadab: Aminadab begat Nahshon: Nahshon begat Salmon:
And Aram begate Aminadab, and Aminadab begate Naasson, and Naasson begate Salmon.
Ram was the father of Amminadab. Amminadab was the father of Nahshon. Nahshon was the father of Salmon.
Aram was the father of Amminadab. Amminadab was the father of Nahshon. Nahshon was the father of Salmon.
and Aram the father of Aminadab, and Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon,
And Aram begate Aminadab. And Aminadab begate Naasson. And Naasson begat Salmon.
Aram begot Aminadab; Aminadab begot Nahson; Nahson begot Salmon;
And Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nashon, and Nashon begat Salmon;
And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon.
and Ram the father of Ammin'adab, and Ammin'adab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Aram begat Aminadab, Aminadab begat Naasson, Naasson begat Salmon.
Aram fathered Amminadab,
Ram became the father of `Amminadav. `Amminadav became the father of Nachshon. Nachshon became the father of Salmon.
and Aram became the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon became the father of Salmon,
and Aram fathered Amminadab, and Amminadab fathered Nahshon, and Nahshon fathered Salmon,
and Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,
Aram begat Aminadab: Aminadab begat Naasson: Naasson begat Salmon:
Aram the father of Aminadab, Aminadab the father of Naasson, Naasson the father of Salmon.
Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon.
Ram was Amminadab's daddy. Amminadab was Nahshon's daddy. Nahshon was Salmon's daddy.
Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.
And Ram was the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab was the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon was the father of Salmon.
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
Aminadab: Ruth 4:19, Ruth 4:20, 1 Chronicles 2:10-12, Amminadab
Naasson: Numbers 1:7, Numbers 2:3, Numbers 7:12, Numbers 7:17, Numbers 10:14, Nahshon, Luke 3:32
Reciprocal: Exodus 6:23 - Amminadab 1 Chronicles 2:11 - Salma Luke 3:33 - Aminadab
Cross-References
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:
Gill's Notes on the Bible
And Aram begat Aminadab,.... Which, with what follows in this verse, exactly agrees with the genealogical account in Ruth 4:19.
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.
