Second Sunday after Easter
Click here to join the effort!
Read the Bible
Mace New Testament
Matthew 1:6
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- CondensedDevotionals:
- EveryParallel Translations
and Jesse fathered King David.
And Iesse begate Dauid the King, & Dauid the King begat Solomon of her that had bin the wife of Urias.
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah,
Jesse fathered David the king. David fathered Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.
Jesse was the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon. (Solomon's mother had been Uriah's wife.)
Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.
And Iesse begate Dauid the King. And Dauid the King begate Solomon of her that was the wife of Vrias.
Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.
And Jesse was the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah.
and Jesse the father of David the king. Next: David was the father of Solomon by Uriah's wife,
Yishai was the father of David the king. David was the father of Shlomo (his mother was the wife of Uriyah),
and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon, of her [that had been the wife] of Urias;
Jesse was the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon. (His mother had been Uriah's wife.)
Jesse begot David the king; David the king begot Solomon of the wife of Uriah;
and Jesse became the father of David the king. And David became the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah,
and Jesse fathered David the king. And David the king fathered Solomon out of her who had been the wife of Uriah,
and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
And the son of Jesse was David the king; and the son of David was Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah;
Yishai became the father of David the king. David became the father of Shlomo by her who had been the wife of Uriyah.
and Jesse fathered King David.1 Samuel 16:1; 17:12; 2 Samuel 12:24;">[xr] David fathered Solomon by the wife of Uriah,
Ishai begat David the king; David begat Shelemun from [fn] the wife of Uria;
Jesse begat David the king: David begat Solomon of the wife of Uriah:
Iesse begat Dauid the kyng, Dauid the kyng begat Solomon, of her that was the wyfe of Urie.
and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
Jesse became the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.
And Jesse begat David the king.
Jesse of David--the King. David (by Uriah's widow) was the father of Solomon;
Dauid the king bigat Salamon, of hir that was Vries wijf.
and Jesse begot David the king. And David begot Solomon from her who was Uriah's;
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah;
and Jesse the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah),
and Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife [fn] of Uriah.
Jesse was the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon (whose mother was Bathsheba, the widow of Uriah).
Jesse was the father of David the king. King David was the father of Solomon. His mother had been the wife of Uriah.
and Jesse the father of King David. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah,
And Jesse begat David the King. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias.
and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uri'ah,
Iesse begat Dauid the kynge: Dauid the kynge begat Salomon of her that was the wyfe of Vry:
and Jesse begat David the king. And David the king begat Solomon, of her [who had been] Uriah's,
Iesse begat Dauid the kynge: Dauid the kynge begat Salomon, of her that was the wyfe of Vry:
Jesse was King David's daddy.David was Solomon's daddy (whose momma was Bathsheba, the widow lady of Uriah).
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
Jesse: Ruth 4:22, 1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 16:11-13, 1 Samuel 17:12, 1 Samuel 17:58, 1 Samuel 20:30, 1 Samuel 20:31, 1 Samuel 22:8, 2 Samuel 23:1, 1 Chronicles 2:15, Psalms 72:20, Isaiah 11:1, Acts 13:22, Acts 13:23
Solomon: 2 Samuel 12:24, 2 Samuel 12:25, 1 Chronicles 3:5, 1 Chronicles 14:4, 1 Chronicles 28:5
her: 2 Samuel 11:3, 2 Samuel 11:26, 2 Samuel 11:27, 1 Kings 1:11-17, 1 Kings 1:28-31, 1 Kings 15:5, Romans 8:3
Urias: 2 Samuel 23:39, 1 Chronicles 11:41, Uriah
Reciprocal: Genesis 17:6 - kings 2 Samuel 5:14 - Solomon Proverbs 6:33 - and his Romans 1:3 - which
Gill's Notes on the Bible
And Jesse begat David the king,.... The descent of the Messiah runs in the line of David, the youngest of Jesse's sons, who was despised by his brethren, and overlooked and neglected by his father; but God chose him, and anointed him to be king, and set him on the throne of Israel; hence he is called "David the king"; as also because he was the first king that was of the tribe of Judah, and in the genealogy of Christ, and was an eminent type of the king Messiah, who is sometimes called by the same name,
Ezekiel 34:24 and who was to be his son, as Jesus is, and also right heir to his throne and kingdom.
And David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; which was Bathsheba, though not named; either because she was well known, or because of the sin she had been guilty of, which would easily be revived by mentioning her name: our translators have rightly supplied, "that had been", and not as the Vulgate Latin, which supplies it, "that was the wife of Urias", for Solomon was begotten of her, not while she was the wife of Uriah, but when she was the wife of David.
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.
