Friday in Easter Week
Click here to join the effort!
Read the Bible
Tyndale New Testament
Matthew 1:14
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- CondensedDevotionals:
- EveryParallel Translations
Azor fathered Zadok,
And Azor begat Sadoc, & Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud.
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud,
Azor fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Achim, and Achim fathered Eliud.
Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Akim. Akim was the father of Eliud.
Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.
And Azor begate Sadoc. And Sadoc begate Achim. And Achim begate Eliud.
Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.
And Azor was the father of Zadok, and Zadok was the father of Achim, and Achim was the father of Eliud.
Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.
‘Azur was the father of Tzadok, Tzadok was the father of Yakhin, Yakhin was the father of El'ichud,
and Azor begat Sadoc, and Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud,
Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Achim. Achim was the father of Eliud.
Azor begot Sadoc; Sadoc begot Achim; Achim begot Eliud;
and Azor became the father of Zadok, and Zadok became the father of Achim, and Achim became the father of Eliud,
and Azor fathered Sadoc, and Sadoc fathered Achim, and Achim fathered Eliud,
and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
And Azor had Zadok; and Zadok had Achim; and Achim had Eliud;
Azur became the father of Tzadok. Tzadok became the father of Yakhin. Yakhin became the father of Eliud.
Azor fathered Zadok, Zadok fathered Achim, Achim fathered Eliud,
Ozur begat Zoduk, Zoduk begat Akin, Akin begat Aliud,
Azor begat Zadok: Zadok begat Achim: Achim begat Eliud:
Azor begat Sadoc, Sadoc begat Achen, Achen begat Eliud.
and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
Azor became the father of Sadoc. Sadoc became the father of Achim. Achim became the father of Eliud.
And Azor begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud;
Azor of Zadok; Zadok of Achim; Achim of Eliud;
Asor bigat Sadoc. Sadoc bigat Achym.
and Azor begot Zadok; and Zadok begot Achim; and Achim begot Eliud;
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud,
Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud.
Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Akim. Akim was the father of Eliud.
Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Achim. Achim was the father of Eliud.
and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud,
And Azor begat Sadoc, and Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud;
And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud.
and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eli'ud,
and Azor begat Sadok, and Sadok begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud,
Azor begat Sadoc: Sadoc begat Achin: Achin begat Eliud:
And Azor father of Sadoc, Sadoc father of Achim, Achim father of Eliud.
Azor was Zadok's daddy. Zadok was Akim's daddy. Akim was Eliud's daddy.
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
Cross-References
saynge: Where is he yt is borne kynge of ye Iues? We have sene his starre in ye eest and are come to worship him.
Immediatly after the tribulacios of those dayes shall the sunne be derkened: and ye mone shall not geve hir light and the starre shall fall from heve and the powers of heve shall move.
Moreover in thoose dayes after that tribulacio the sunne shall wexe darke and the mone shall not geve her light
and the sonne was darckened. And the vayle of the temple dyd rent even thorow the myddes.
And I behelde when he opened the sixte seale and loo there was a grett erth quake and the sunne was as blacke as sacke clothe made of heare. And the mone wexed even as bloud:
And the fourth angell blew and the thyrde parte of the sunne was smytten and the thyrde parte of the mone and ye thyrde part of starres: so that the thyrde parte of them was darckned. And the daye was smytten that the thyrde part of it shulde not shyne and lyke wyse ye nyght.
And he opened the botomlesse pytt and there arose the smoke of a grett fornace. And the sunne and the ayer were darkned by the reason of the smoke of the pytt.
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.
- 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.
