Matthew 1:14

Easy-to-Read Version

Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Achim. Achim was the father of Eliud.

Parallel Translations

Christian Standard Bible®
Azor fathered Zadok,

King James Version (1611)
And Azor begat Sadoc, & Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud.

King James Version
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

English Standard Version
and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud,

New American Standard Bible
Azor fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Achim, and Achim fathered Eliud.

New Century Version
Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Akim. Akim was the father of Eliud.

Amplified Bible
Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.

Geneva Bible (1587)
And Azor begate Sadoc. And Sadoc begate Achim. And Achim begate Eliud.

New American Standard Bible (1995)
Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.

Legacy Standard Bible
And Azor was the father of Zadok, and Zadok was the father of Achim, and Achim was the father of Eliud.

Berean Standard Bible
Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.

Complete Jewish Bible
‘Azur was the father of Tzadok, Tzadok was the father of Yakhin, Yakhin was the father of El'ichud,

Darby Translation
and Azor begat Sadoc, and Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud,

George Lamsa Translation
Azor begot Sadoc; Sadoc begot Achim; Achim begot Eliud;

Lexham English Bible
and Azor became the father of Zadok, and Zadok became the father of Achim, and Achim became the father of Eliud,

Literal Translation
and Azor fathered Sadoc, and Sadoc fathered Achim, and Achim fathered Eliud,

American Standard Version
and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

Bible in Basic English
And Azor had Zadok; and Zadok had Achim; and Achim had Eliud;

Hebrew Names Version
Azur became the father of Tzadok. Tzadok became the father of Yakhin. Yakhin became the father of Eliud.

International Standard Version
Azor fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Achim, Achim fathered Eliud,

Etheridge Translation
Ozur begat Zoduk, Zoduk begat Akin, Akin begat Aliud,

Murdock Translation
Azor begat Zadok: Zadok begat Achim: Achim begat Eliud:

Bishop's Bible (1568)
Azor begat Sadoc, Sadoc begat Achen, Achen begat Eliud.

English Revised Version
and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

World English Bible
Azor became the father of Sadoc. Sadoc became the father of Achim. Achim became the father of Eliud.

Wesley's New Testament (1755)
And Azor begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud;

Weymouth's New Testament
Azor of Zadok; Zadok of Achim; Achim of Eliud;

Wycliffe Bible (1395)
Asor bigat Sadoc. Sadoc bigat Achym.

Update Bible Version
and Azor begot Zadok; and Zadok begot Achim; and Achim begot Eliud;

Webster's Bible Translation
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

New English Translation
Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud,

New King James Version
Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud.

New Living Translation
Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Akim. Akim was the father of Eliud.

New Life Bible
Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Achim. Achim was the father of Eliud.

New Revised Standard
and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud,

J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible
And Azor begat Sadoc, and Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud;

Douay-Rheims Bible
And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud.

Revised Standard Version
and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eli'ud,

Tyndale New Testament (1525)
Azor begat Sadoc: Sadoc begat Achin: Achin begat Eliud:

Young's Literal Translation
and Azor begat Sadok, and Sadok begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud,

Miles Coverdale Bible (1535)
Azor begat Sadoc: Sadoc begat Achin: Achin begat Eliud:

Mace New Testament (1729)
And Azor father of Sadoc, Sadoc father of Achim, Achim father of Eliud.

Simplified Cowboy Version
Azor was Zadok's daddy. Zadok was Akim's daddy. Akim was Eliud's daddy.

Contextual Overview

¹ This is the family history of Jesus the Messiah. He came from the family of David, who was from the family of Abraham. ² Abraham was the father of Isaac. Isaac was the father of Jacob. Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers. ³ Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah. (Their mother was Tamar.) Perez was the father of Hezron. Hezron was the father of Ram. ⁴ Ram was the father of Amminadab. Amminadab was the father of Nahshon. Nahshon was the father of Salmon. ⁵ Salmon was the father of Boaz. (His mother was Rahab.) Boaz was the father of Obed. (His mother was Ruth.) Obed was the father of Jesse. ⁶ Jesse was the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon. (His mother had been Uriah's wife.) ⁷ Solomon was the father of Rehoboam. Rehoboam was the father of Abijah. Abijah was the father of Asa. ⁸ Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat was the father of Jehoram. Jehoram was the father of Uzziah. ⁹ Uzziah was the father of Jotham. Jotham was the father of Ahaz. Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah. ¹⁰ Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon. Amon was the father of Josiah.

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

Cross-References

Genesis 1:1
God created the sky and the earth. At first,

Genesis 1:2
the earth was completely empty. There was nothing on the earth. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's Spirit moved over the water.

Genesis 1:3
Then God said, "Let there be light!" And light began to shine.

Genesis 1:4
He saw the light, and he knew that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:6
Then God said, "Let there be a space to separate the water into two parts!"

Genesis 1:7
So God made the space and separated the water. Some of the water was above it, and some of the water was below it.

Genesis 1:8
God named that space "sky." There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the second day.

Genesis 1:9
Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered together so that the dry land will appear." And it happened.

Genesis 1:12
The earth grew grass and plants that made grain. And it grew trees that made fruit with seeds in it. Every plant made its own kind of seeds. And God saw that this was good.

Genesis 1:14
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the sky. These lights will separate the days from the nights. They will be used for signs to show when special meetings begin and to show the days and years.

Gill's Notes on the Bible

:-.

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.

1. Many names that are found in the Old Testament are here omitted; and,
2. 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.