Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:8
And Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
8. Joram begat Ozias (Uzziah)] The names of Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah are here omitted; see note, Mat 1:17.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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 2Ch 26:16, 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 Ezr 7:3, Azariah is called the son of Meraioth, although it is evident, from 1Ch 6:7-9, 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 , 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Jehoshaphat, here called
Josaphat, in the Greek, (they having no letter to express the Hebrew by), was the son of Asa, a good son of a good father, 2Ch 17:1,2; he reigned twenty-five years, 1Ki 22:42. Jehoram, here called
Joram, succeeded him in his kingdom: he slew his brethren; he walked in the ways of Ahab. 2Ch 21:4,6; he reigned but eight years, lived and died wickedly, and was buried infamously, 2Ch 21:19,20. But here ariseth another difficulty from what is said,
Joram begat Ozias. It is certain that he did not beget him immediately, for Uzziah was the fourth from Joram. Jehoram or Joram begat Ahaziah, he was his youngest son; he lived but one year as king, 2Ch 22:1,2; then Athaliah usurped the kingdom for six years, not counting her usurpation. Joash the son of Ahaziah reigned forty years, 2Ch 24:1. He dies, and Amaziah his son reigned in his stead, 2Ki 12:21. He was the father of Uzziah, 2Ch 26:1, called Azariah, 2Ki 14:21. So that when it is said, that Joram begat Ozias, we must only understand that Uzziah lineally descended from Joram: thus, Mat 1:1, Christ is called the Son of David, the son of Abraham. Thus the Jews said: We have Abraham to our father; and Elisabeth is said to be of the daughters of Aaron, Luk 1:5. But it is a greater question why the evangelist leaves out Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, who were all three lawful princes, and rightly descended from the family of David. To pass by various conjectures, the best account I find given of it is this.
1. It is manifest the evangelist had a design to divide all the generations from Abraham to Christ into three periods. The first of which should contain the growing state of the Jewish commonwealth, till it came at the height, which was in Davids time. The second should contain its flourishing state; which was from Davids time till the first carrying into captivity. The third should contain its declining state, from the first carrying them into captivity to the coming of Christ.
2. He designed to reduce all the generations in each period to fourteen; this appeareth from Mat 1:17. Now although the first period contained exactly fourteen descents or generations, yet in the second there was manifestly seventeen, so as the evangelist was obliged to leave out three to bring them to the number of fourteen: now though it be a little too curious to inquire why the evangelist chose to leave out these three, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, rather than any other three, yet there is a probable good account of it given by learned men, who have waded into these speculations. Ahaziah was the son of Jehoram by Athaliah the daughter of Ahab, 2Ch 21:6; Joash her grandchild; Amaziah her great grandchild. Now God had cursed the house of Ahab, and threatened to root out all his house, 1Ki 21:21. This (as is supposed) made the evangelist, who was necessitated to leave out three to bring the generations to fourteen, rather to choose to leave out these princes, who were of Ahabs half blood, than any others. If any say, Why then did he not leave out more? Besides that he was not obliged any other way, (than as he would keep to his number to leave out these), he knew Gods threatenings of children for the sins of parents usually terminate in the third and fourth generation.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And Asa begat Josaphat,…. Called Jehoshaphat,
1Ki 15:24 whom Asa begat of Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi,
1Ki 22:42. He also was a very good prince.
And Josaphat begat Joram; called Jehoram, 1Ki 22:50 to whom his father gave the kingdom, because he was the firstborn, 2Ch 21:3.
And Joram begat Ozias; called Uzziah, 2Ch 26:1 and Azariah,
2Ki 15:1. He was not the immediate son of Joram; there were three kings between them, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which are here omitted; either because of the curse denounced on Ahab’s family, into which Joram married, whose idolatry was punished to the third or fourth generation; or because these were princes of no good character; or because their names were not in the Jewish registers. Nor does this omission at all affect the design of the Evangelist, which is to show that Jesus, the true Messiah, is of the house of David; nor ought the Jews to complain of it, as they do a since such omissions are to be met with in the Old Testament, particularly in Ezr 7:2 where six generations are omitted at once; and which is taken notice of by one of their own genealogical writers, whose words are these b;
“we see in the genealogy of Ezra that he hath skipped over seven generations (perhaps it should be “six” and not “seven”, since six are only omitted) from Ahitub to Ahitub.”
Nor is it any objection that Joram is said to beget Ozias, which he may be said to do in the like sense, as has been before observed of Hezekiah, Isa 39:7.
a R. Isaac Chizzuk Emunab, par. 2. p. 390. b Juchasin, fol. 10. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “And Asa begat Josaphat;” (Asaph de egennesen ton losaphat) “Thereafter Asaph begat Jehosaphat;” nineteenth generation of the Faith-line of Abraham, also joined with the Davidic Kingly lineage covenant. The name is shortened from Jehoshaphat and means “whom Jehovah judges,” 1Ch 11:43; 1Ki 15:23-24. After Asa’s death he was buried in Jerusalem, near where David was buried, then Jehoshaphat’s reign began and continued for 25 years in Jerusalem, 1Ki 22:41-42.
2) “And Jehoshaphat beget Joram;” (losaphat de egennesen ton loram) “Thereafter Jehosaphat begat Joram” twentieth generation of the Abrahamic lineage of Faith, according to the Abrahamic covenant; Joram is the same as Jehoram, 2Sa 8:10. The name means “Jehovah is high” or exalted, 1Ki 22:50. He was a wicked king who married king Ahab’s daughter, reigned eight years, died and was buried dishonored and undesired, 2Ch 21:18-20.
3) “And Joram beget Ozias;” (Ioram de egonnesen ton Ozian) “Thereafter Joram beget the man Ozias,” twenty-first generation of the Abrahamic Faith-line covenant and now also party to the Kingly Davidic covenant lineage of promise. The name Ozias is the same as Uzziah and means “mighty of Jehovah,” 1Ki 15:13. Three kings are here omitted in the genealogy Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, 1Ch 3:11-12. It is believed to be either because of their connection with the house of Ahab or to accommodate the 42 generations under four triads, Mat 1:17.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Mat 1:8. Joram begat Ozias It is undeniably evident, from 2 Chron. chap. 22: and following, that three princes are here omitted. There are instances of the like omissions in other genealogies. See Ezra 7 where, by comparing that chapter with 1 Chronicles 6 it is found that five generations were left out. We may well suppose that it was by some peculiar divine direction, that the sin of Jehoram is thus animadverted upon even to the fourth generation; his intermediate descendants being thus blotted out of the records of Christ’s family, and overlooked as if they had never been. See Doddridge, Beausobre and Lenfant.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 1:8 . ] Three kings, Ahaziah, Joaz, and Amazia, are wanting between these ( 2Ki 8:24 ; 1Ch 3:11 ; 2Ch 22:1 ; 2Ch 22:11 ; 2Ch 24:27 ). The common opinion is that of Jerome, that the omission was made for the sake of obtaining an equal division of the names, in order not to go beyond the three Tesseradecades. Such omissions were nothing unusual: 1Ch 8:1 ; Gen 46:21 . See Surenhusius, . . p. 97. Lightfoot, Hor . p. 181. On the same phenomenon in the Book of Enoch, see Ewald in the Kieler Monatschrift , 1852, p. 520 f. The evangelist accepted the genealogical list without alteration, just as he found it; and the cause of that omission cannot be pointed out, but probably was only, and that without special design, the similarity of those names, in which way the omission also which occurs in Mat 1:11 is to be explained. Ebrard and Riggenbach, erroneously introducing the point of view of theocratic illegality (comp. Lange), are of opinion that Matthew omitted the three kings for this reason, that Joram, on account of his marriage with the daughter of Jezebel, and of his conduct, had deserved that his posterity should be exterminated down to the fourth generation (so already some of the Fathers, Maldonatus, Spanheim, Lightfoot); that Matthew accordingly declared the descendants of the heathen Jezebel, down to the fourth generation, unworthy of succeeding to the theocratic throne. This breaks down at once before the simple . The omissions are generally not to be regarded as consciously made, otherwise they would conflict with Mat 1:17 ( ), and would amount to a falsification.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
Ver. 8. And Asa begat Josaphat ] A godly king, but late witted, and therefore paid for his learning twice at least in holy history. One thing in the narration of his acts is very remarkable. He placed forces in all the fenced cities; yet it is not said thereupon that the fear of the Lord fell on the neighbouring nations. But when he had established a preaching ministry in all the cities, then his enemies feared and made no war, 2Ch 17:10 . Solidissima regiae politiae basis (saith Paradinus in Symbolis) est verum Dei cultum ubivis stabilire: alias qui potest aut Deus Reges beare, a quibus negligitur; aut populus fideliter colere, qui de obsequio suo non recte instituitur? The ordinances of God are the beauty and bulwark of a place and people.
And Josaphat begat Joram ] That lived undesired and died unlamented. While he lived there was no use of him, and when he died, no miss of him: no more than of the paring of the nails or sweeping of the house ( ). He lived wickedly, and died wishedly, as it is said of King Edwin (Daniel’s Hist.).
And Joram begat Ozias ] Here Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are written in the earth, not once set down in the roll: perhaps it was because they were imped in the wicked family of Ahab. This Uzziah, though a king, yet he loved husbandry, 2Ch 26:10 . Thrift is the fuel of magnificence. He was at length a leper, yet still remained a king. Infirmities may deform us, they cannot dethrone us. The English laws (saith Camden, Elizabeth) pronounce, that the crown once worn quite taketh away all defects whatsoever: sure it is that when God once crowns a man with his grace and favour, that man is out of harm’s way for ever.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
8. ] Three kings, viz., Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah ( 1Ch 3:11-12 ), are here omitted (supplied in syr-c [3] , lat [4] [5] , [6] in Luke). Some (Spanheim, Lightf., Ebrard, &c.) think that they were erased on account of their connexion, by means of Athaliah, with the accursed house of Ahab. Simeon is omitted by Moses in blessing the tribes ( Deu 33:1-29 ): the descendants of Zebulun and Dan are passed over in 1 Chron., and none of the latter tribe are sealed in Rev 7:1-17 . But more probably such erasion, even if justifiable by that reason, was not made on account of it, but for convenience, in order to square the numbers of the different portions of the genealogies, as here. Compare as illustrating such omissions, 1Ch 8:1 with Gen 46:21 .
[3] The Syriac version discovered by Dr. Cureton amongst the Nitrian MSS. in the British Museum. Perhaps the earliest and most important of all the versions.
[4] Codex Vercellensis fourth century .
[5] Codex Vercellensis fourth century .
[6] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ, so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history; but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Josaphat = Jehoshaphat (2Ch 17-18).
Joram = Jehoram (2Ki 8:16. 2Ch 21:1). Three names are omitted here. All are not necessary in a royal genealogy. In Mat 1:1 three names are sufficient.
The four names are:
1. Ahaziah (2Ki 8:27. 2Ch 22:1-9).
2. Joash or Jehoash (2Ki 11:2-21; 2Ki 12:1-20. 2Ch 24:1-25).
3. Amaziah (2Ki 14:8-20. 2Ch 25:1, 2Ch 25:8).
4. Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:36-37; 2Ki 24:1-6. 2Ch 36:5-8).
Ozias = Uzziah (2Ch 26:1), or Azariah (2Ki 14:21).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
8. ] Three kings, viz., Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah (1Ch 3:11-12), are here omitted (supplied in syr-c[3], lat[4] [5], [6] in Luke). Some (Spanheim, Lightf., Ebrard, &c.) think that they were erased on account of their connexion, by means of Athaliah, with the accursed house of Ahab. Simeon is omitted by Moses in blessing the tribes (Deu 33:1-29): the descendants of Zebulun and Dan are passed over in 1 Chron., and none of the latter tribe are sealed in Rev 7:1-17. But more probably such erasion, even if justifiable by that reason, was not made on account of it, but for convenience, in order to square the numbers of the different portions of the genealogies, as here. Compare as illustrating such omissions, 1Ch 8:1 with Gen 46:21.
[3] The Syriac version discovered by Dr. Cureton amongst the Nitrian MSS. in the British Museum. Perhaps the earliest and most important of all the versions.
[4] Codex Vercellensis fourth century.
[5] Codex Vercellensis fourth century.
[6] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ,-so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history;-but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 1:8. , but Joram begat Josiah) Ahaziah (who is the same as the Joahaz of 2Ch 21:17; 2Ch 22:1), Joash, and Amaziah (mentioned in 1Ch 3:11-12), are here passed over: so that the word (begat) must be understood mediately[9] instead of immediately: as frequently happens with the word (son), as in the first verse of this chapter, where our Lord is called the Son of David, who was His remote ancestor. In like manner Joram is here said to have begotten Josiah, who was his great-grandson,-that is to say, he was his progenitor. Thus, by referring to 1Ch 6:7-9, we find, that six generations are left out in Ezr 7:3, between Azariah and Meraioth. St Matthew omitted the three kings in question, not because he was ignorant of their having existed (since the whole context proves his familiar acquaintance with his subject), but because they were well known to all: nor did he do so with any fraudulent intention, since, by increasing the number of generations, he would have confirmed the notion that the Messiah must have already appeared. Nor did he omit them on account of their impiety, for he has mentioned other impious men, as e.g. Jechonias, and him with especial consideration, and he has passed over several pious ones. But, as in describing roads and ways, it is necessary to be especially careful with regard to those points where they branch off in different directions, whereas a straight road may be found without any such direction, so does St Matthew in this genealogy point out with particular care those who have had brothers, and who, in contradistinction to them, have propagated the stem of the Messiah. He has indeed carried this so far that, having a reason[10] for not naming Jehoiakim, he has assigned his brothers to his only son; whilst he has passed over, without inconvenience, Joash, who was the only link[11] in his generation, together with his father and son. Furthermore, as in geography the distances of places from each other are, without any violence to truth, described sometimes by longer, sometimes by shorter stages,-so is it with the successive steps of generations in a pedigree; nor is the practice of Hebrew genealogists an exception to the general custom in this matter. The writers of the New Testament are accustomed also rather to imply than assert circumstances already well known on the authority of the Old Testament, and not liable to be mistaken, employing a brevity as congenial to the ardour of the Spirit, as desirable on other grounds.-See Gnomon on Act 7:16. Oziah was previously called Azariah, but by the omission of one Hebrew letter (, R) his name becomes Oziah.
[9] i.e., There being mediate or intervening persons.-ED
[10] See Jer 22:30.-(I. B.)
[11] In the original, qui unica sui temporis scintilla fuerat.-(I. B.)
The only spark in his generation to prevent the line being extinguished.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Josaphat: 1Ki 15:24, 1Ki 22:2-50, 2Ki 3:1, 2Ch 17:1 – 2Ch 20:37, Jehoshaphat
Joram: 1Ki 22:50, 2Ki 8:16, Jehoram, 1Ch 3:11, 2Ch 21:1
Ozias: 2Ki 14:21, 2Ki 15:1-6, Azariah, 2Ch 26:1-23, Uzziah
Reciprocal: 1Ki 15:8 – Asa 2Ki 15:13 – Uzziah 1Ch 3:10 – Jehoshaphat 1Ch 3:12 – Azariah 2Ch 14:1 – Asa Amo 1:1 – in the
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:8
Verse 8. Joshaphat is Jehoshaphat, Joram is Jehoram, and Ozias is Uzziah in the O.T.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[And Joram begat Ozias.] The names of Ahazias, Joash, and Amazias, are struck out. See the history in the books of the Kings, and 1Ch 3:11-12.
I. The promise that “the throne of David should not be empty,” passed over, after a manner, for some time into the family of Jehu, the overthrower of Joram’s family. For when he had razed the house of Ahab, and had slain Ahaziah, sprung, on the mother’s side, of the family of Ahab, the Lord promiseth him that his sons should reign unto the fourth generation, 2Ki 10:30. Therefore however the mean time the throne of David was not empty, and that Joash and Amazias sat during the space between, yet their names are not unfitly omitted by our evangelist, both because they were sometimes not very unlike Joram in their manners; and because their kingdom was very much eclipsed by the kingdom of Israel, when Ahazias was slain by Jehu, and his cousin Amazias taken and basely subdued by his cousin Joash, 2Ch 25:23.
II. “The seed of the wicked shall be cut off,” Psa 37:28. Let the studious reader observe that, in the original, in this very place, the letter Ain, which is the last letter of wicked; and of seed; is cut off, and is not expressed; when, by the rule of acrostic verse (according to which this Psalm is composed), that letter ought to begin the next following verse.
III. “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, etc. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation,” (Exo 20:5).
Joram walked in the idolatrous ways of the kings of Israel, according to the manner of the family of Ahab, 2Ki 8:18. Which horrid violation of the second command God visits upon his posterity, according to the threatening of that command; and therefore the names of his sons are dashed out unto the fourth generation.
IV. The Old Testament also stigmatizeth that idolatry of Joram in a way not unlike this of the New; and shows that family unworthy to be numbered among David’s progeny, 2Ch 22:2; Ahazias, the son of two and forty years; that is, not of his age (for he was not above two-and-twenty, 2Ki 8:26), but of the duration of the family of Omri, of which stock Ahazias was, on the mother’s side; as will sufficiently appear to him that computes the years. A fatal thing surely! That the years of a king of Judah should be reckoned by the account of the house of Omri.
V. Let a genealogical style not much different be observed, 1Ch 4:1; where Shobal, born in the fifth or sixth generation from Judah, is reckoned as if he were an immediate son of Judah. Compare Mat 2:50.
In the like manner, Ezra_7, in the genealogy of Ezra, five or six generations are erased.
[Please see Genealogies of the Bible: A Neglected Subject (111k) etc. at the Arthur Custance, Doorway Papers Library site regarding these lists and the “missing” names.]
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 1:8. Between Joram and Uzziah, three names are intentionally omitted: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, probably to reduce the number of generations. These three were chosen, either because personally unworthy, or because descendants to the fourth generation from Jezebel, through Athaliah.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 1:8. And Joram begat Ozias By Ozias, Uzziah is intended, and it is certain from the history of the Kings and Chronicles that he was the son of Amaziah, 2Ch 26:1; Amaziah, of Joash, ch. Mat 24:27; Joash, of Ahaziah, ch. Mat 22:11; and Ahaziah, of Jehoram. But, according to the language of the Hebrews, the children of children are reputed the sons or daughters, not only of their immediate parents, but of their ancestors, and these ancestors are said to beget those who are removed some generations from them. Thus Isaiah says to Hezekiah, Of thy sons which thou shalt beget shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon: which prediction was not fulfilled until the days of Jeconiah, long after the days of Hezekiah. But it will be asked, why these three in particular are left out of the catalogue? The best answer to this question seems to be, that the evangelist followed the Jewish tables in writing this list, and that he found them left out in these. But if he himself, though he found them in the tables, omitted their names, it must, as Dr. Doddridge observes, have been by some peculiar divine direction, that the sin of Jehoram is thus animadverted upon, even to the fourth generation, his intermediate descendants being thus blotted out of the records of Christs family, and overlooked as if they had never been.