And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias.

“(In Luc. cap. 2.) That there were two kings of the name of Joakim, is clear from the Book of Kings. And Joakim slept with his fathers, and Joachin his son reigned, in his stead. (2 Kings 24:6.) This son is the same whom Jeremiah calls Jeconias. And rightly did St. Matthew purpose to differ from the Prophet, because he sought to shew therein the great abundance of the Lord’s mercies. For the Lord did not seek among men nobility of race, but suitably chose to be born of captives and of sinners, as He came to preach remission of sin to the captives. The Evangelist therefore did not conceal either of these; but rather shewed them both, inasmuch as both were called Jeconias.”

“In the fourth book of Kings we read, that Ochozias was the son of Joram. On his death, Josabeth, sister of Ochozias and daughter of Joram, took Joash, her brother’s son, and preserved him from the slaughter of the royal seed by Athalias. To Joash succeeded his son Amasias; after him his son Azarias, who is called Ozias; after him his son Joatham. Thus you see according to historical truth there were three intervening kings, who are omitted by the Evangelist. Joram, moreover, begot not Ozias, but Ochozias, and the rest as we have related. But because it was the purpose of the Evangelist to make each of the three periods consist of fourteen generations, and because Joram had connected himself with Jezebel’s most impious race, therefore his posterity to the third generation is omitted in tracing the lineage of the holy birth.”

“Bersabee is interpreted ‘the seventh well,’ or ‘the well of the oathc;’ by which is signified the grant of baptism, in which is given the gift of the sevenfold Spirit, and the oath against the Devil is made. Christ is also Solomon, i. e. the peaceful, according to that of the Apostle, He is our peace. (Eph. 2:14.) Roboamd is, ‘the breadth of the people,’ according to that, Many shall come from the East and from the West.”

“Having set forth the series of the genealogy of the fathers which ran through the patriarchs, here he sets forth the series of the fathers which proceeds through the kings; and it is divided into two parts. First are set forth the kings who were born of Israel without any admixture of foreign seed; second are set forth the kings who followed upon a union with a foreign spouse, at the place, "And Joram begot Uzziah." Here there is a twofold question. For Luke, in reckoning the generation of Christ, ascends through Nathan; but Matthew, descending, proceeds from David to Christ through Solomon: whence there seems to be a certain contrariety. But it must be said, as has been said, that Luke in the genealogy of Christ sets down many fathers who were not fathers by carnal origin through propagation, but according to legal adoption; whereas Matthew sets down none who was not a carnal father. And it is true that according to the flesh the Lord descended from David through Solomon, and not through Nathan; and yet, according to Augustine, it is not without mystery that Matthew descends from David through Solomon to Christ, while Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan. For Matthew had undertaken to describe the carnal generation of Christ, according to which Christ descended even to the likeness of sinful flesh; and therefore Matthew rightly, in tracing his generation, descends from David through Solomon, with whose mother David himself sinned; but Luke, who intends chiefly to commend in Christ the priestly dignity, through which there was an expiation of sins, rightly ascends through Nathan to David, who was a holy man. Note, however, that according to the same Augustine in the book of Retractions, it is not to be understood that the Nathan who was a prophet, who rebuked him, was the same as the son whom he begot; but only that they were alike in name. Second, it is asked why Bathsheba is not named by her name, as Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth are. And it must be said that the others, although for some time they were sinners, were afterward converted and penitent; but this woman sinned shamefully, in the crime of adultery and in consent to homicide: and therefore, out of shame, her name is passed over in silence. Note, however, that in Scripture the sins of great men are sometimes recounted, as of David and others; and this is because the Devil has cast down not only the small and lesser ones, but also the great: for he is our adversary. And therefore they are recounted as a caution, that he who stands may take heed lest he fall. Another reason is, lest anyone should think them to be more than men. For if anyone were to consider only their perfection, he could be deceived into idolatry; but when he sees that they fell through sin, he no longer believes there is in them anything more than what belongs to man. Note also this, according to Gregory, that sometimes the literal deed is evil and what is signified is good; but sometimes the deed is good and what is signified is evil. For Uriah was a good and just man, and is not reproved in Scripture for anything; and yet he signifies the Devil. But Bathsheba was a sinner; and yet she signifies a good thing, namely the Church, as the Gloss notes on 2 Kings 12, and also the Gloss which is said to expound the figure according to the allegorical sense. For Uriah is interpreted "my light is God," and signifies the Devil, who desired the light of the divinity; Isaiah 14:14: "I shall be like the Most High." Bathsheba is interpreted "well of seven," or "well of fellowship"; and she signifies the Church from the Gentiles, on account of the sevenfold grace of baptism. The Devil had first betrothed her to himself; but David, that is, Christ, took her away from him, and joined her to himself, and slew the Devil himself. Otherwise, Bathsheba signifies the Law, by whose ways the people were led, who did not wish to enter the house through spiritual understanding, and therefore he carries the letters of his own death, because "the letter kills," 2 Corinthians 3:6. But David, that is, Christ, took the Law away from the Jews, when he taught that it was to be understood spiritually. "And Solomon begot Rehoboam," and so forth. Now just as David is interpreted "strong of hand," or "desirable in appearance," so Solomon is interpreted "peaceable": and this is fitting, because from the strength of a good operation there comes peace of conscience; Psalm 118:165: "Much peace have they that love your law." Now it happens that from peace of conscience a man wills that others come to the good. Hence Solomon begot Rehoboam, who is interpreted "onrush" or "impetus": because he is moved by an impetus of preaching, having peace of conscience for the spreading of the name of Christ; as is read of the apostles, Isaiah 27:6: "They who come in with an onrush to Jacob, Israel shall flourish and bud, and they shall fill the face of the world with seed." Now both signify Christ, because he himself is peace. Likewise he himself is Rehoboam, who converts the people by an onrush of preaching. "And Rehoboam begot Abijah," who is interpreted "God is father": because from the fact that a man is zealous for the spiritual or bodily progress of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of the fatherhood of God, as below, 5:44: "Do good to those who hate you, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven," and so forth. And Luke 6:36: "Be merciful." This also befits Christ, to whom it is said: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." "And Abijah begot Asa," who is interpreted "lifting up" or "raising": because sometimes a man, from the fact that he is made a father and superior to others, falls into a certain negligence of self-security; therefore Abijah begot Asa, namely so that man may be in continual progress, and always lift himself up to greater things. This also befits Christ, who is called "lifting up," that is, growing; Luke 2:40: "And the child grew." Or "lifting up," because he took away the sins of the world. "And Asa begot Jehoshaphat," who is interpreted "judging": because from the fact that the spiritual man always grows, he is made one who judges; 1 Corinthians 2:15: "The spiritual man judges all things." And this befits Christ, because the Father has given all judgment to the Son. "And Jehoshaphat begot Joram," who is interpreted "dwelling in the heights": because he who is appointed judge ought to dwell in the heights; Isaiah 33:16: "This one shall dwell in the heights." Now how this is so, the Apostle says: "Our citizenship is in heaven." And this befits Christ, because "the Lord is high above all nations," Psalm 112:4. "And Joram begot Uzziah." Here there is a literal question. For in 1 Chronicles 3:11 it is said that Joram begot Ahaziah. And Ahaziah begot Joram. And Joras begot Amaziah, who is also called Azariah. And Amaziah begot Uzziah. In two respects, therefore, the Evangelist seems to have fallen short in the series of the genealogy: first, because Joram did not beget Uzziah, but Amaziah; second, because he omitted three generations. And it must be said, as to the first, that to beget another can be understood in two ways, mediately or immediately: immediately, as a carnal father immediately begets a son; and in this way Joram did not beget Uzziah. In another way, mediately, as we are called sons of Adam; and thus a son can be said to be begotten by a grandfather or a great-grandfather, because he descends from him through a mediate generation. Now as to why he omitted three kings, a threefold reason is assigned. The first is from Jerome, who says (as it is written, Exodus 20:5): "The Lord visits the sins of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation," upon those who become imitators of their fathers' wickedness. Now Joram took as wife a daughter of Jezebel, namely Athaliah, who drew him into idolatry. Ahaziah too was given to idolatry even more than his father. And likewise Joash, who, along with the crime of idolatry, also killed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada: and therefore these three, as it were unworthy, are excluded from the generation of Christ. Chrysostom assigns another reason. For the Lord commanded, 4 Kings 9, Jehu the son of Nimshi that he should uproot the house of Ahab; he was diligent in carrying out the command, and yet did not withdraw from the worship of the gods, for he worshipped the molten calves. And because he diligently carried out the Lord's command in destroying the house of Ahab, it was said to him that his sons would sit upon the throne of the house of Israel even to the fourth generation; hence, just as Jehu merited the kingdom of Israel even to the third or fourth generation, so, on the contrary, Joram, who mingled himself with gentile women and transferred the iniquity of the house of Israel to the house of Judah, ought to lose the name of posterity in the genealogy of Christ even to the fourth generation, until expiation of the sin was made. Augustine, in the Questions on the New and Old Testament, assigns another reason. For he says that some were good and found good fathers, as Isaac and Jacob; some were evil, and yet found good fathers, as Solomon, who was a sinner, and yet had David, a just and holy man, for a father; some were neither good themselves nor had good fathers, as these three were, as is clear from what has been said. Joram sinned, and his sin continued down to Uzziah, who did almost nothing evil except that he burned incense; but the continuation of sin is the cause or reason of destruction. And therefore these three, who persisted in the sin of idolatry, are excluded from the genealogy of Christ. But a mystical reason is assigned on account of the three sets of fourteen through which Matthew intends to describe the genealogy of Christ. Now Uzziah is interpreted "the strength of the Lord"; and he signifies Christ, of whom it is said in Psalm 117:14: "The Lord is my strength and my praise, and he has become my salvation," and so forth. Mystically, however, Joram begot Uzziah, because those who dwell on high ought to be strong in their working. Note that under this Uzziah, Isaiah prophesied, as is clear from Isaiah 1:1. For on account of the sin of the princes, and of the kings, and also of the people, God took away prophecy and teaching; hence under a good king the flowing-forth of prophecy began again. "And Uzziah begot Jotham," who is interpreted "progress"; and he signifies Christ, through whom the Church makes progress daily. And thus fittingly Uzziah begot Jotham, because those who work strongly are in continual progress; Psalm 83:8: "They shall go from strength to strength." "And Jotham begot Ahaz," who is interpreted "comprehending" or "grasping": because through continual progress in the virtues man comes to the knowledge of God; Psalm 118:104: "From your commandments I have understood; therefore I have hated every way of iniquity"; Psalm 63:10: "They declared the works of God, showing it in their work, and understood his deeds." For which reason Paul says to the Philippians 3:12: "I follow after, if by any means I may lay hold, in which also I have been laid hold of by Christ Jesus." And this befits Christ, who alone perfectly comprehends the divinity; Luke 10:22: "No one knows the Father but the Son." "And Ahaz begot Hezekiah," that is, "the Lord is strong": because such a one has strength from the Lord; 2 Kings 22:2: "The Lord is my strength and my might." And this befits Christ, who is strong in battle. "And Hezekiah begot Manasseh," and it is interpreted "forgetfulness": because he who already perfectly knows God forgets these temporal things; Psalm 44:11: "Forget your people, and the house of your father"; Genesis 41:51: "The Lord God has made me forget all my labors." And this fits Christ, of whom it is said, Ezekiel 18:21: "If the wicked man do penance for all his sins which he has committed, I will not remember all his iniquities that he has done." "And Manasseh begot Amon," that is, "faithful and nourishing": because he is truly faithful who despises temporal things. For according to Gregory, deceit is the daughter of avarice: and therefore he who perfectly despises temporal things no longer has concern for unfaithfulness. Hence rightly Manasseh begot Amon. This is also interpreted "nourishing": because he who despises temporal things ought thereby to nourish the poor through mercy; below, 19:21: "If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have" — behold the contempt — "and give to the poor" — behold the nourishment. Now this befits Christ, who is truly faithful, Psalm 144:13: "The Lord is faithful in all his words," and again a nourisher, Hosea 11:3: "I who was a nourisher of Ephraim, carried them in my arms, and they did not know that I cared for them"; below, 23:37: "How often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not?" "And Amon begot Josiah," who is interpreted "the salvation of the Lord," or "incense": because man attains salvation from the very fact that he also forgets temporal things and gives them away, or distributes them. Or "incense." This befits Christ; Psalm 73:12: "Who has wrought salvation in the midst of the earth," and he offered himself as a sacrifice to God "in an odor of sweetness," Ephesians 5:2. "And Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers," which is interpreted "the preparation of the Lord," or "resurrection"; and he signifies Christ, who prepared a place for us, John 14:2, and who says, John 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life," and through this we come to the resurrection. Here, however, there is a threefold question according to the letter. First it is asked how Josiah is said to have begotten Jeconiah, when in fact he did not beget him, but rather his father Joakim. And to this there is a twofold response. For according to Chrysostom, with whom Augustine agrees, the name Joakim is omitted entirely; and this because he did not reign by divine ordination, but by the power of Pharaoh, who set him up in the kingdom, after his firstborn brother Joathan — who had reigned before him — was imprisoned. And on this note the history in 4 Kings 22, and 2 Chronicles 36:1 and following. Josiah also had three sons: Joathan, Joakim (who is also called Eliakim), and Zedekiah. For if, as Augustine says, those three kings are removed from the genealogy because they were depraved through idolatry, how much more this one, who was set up in the kingdom not through God or a prophet, but through the placement of a gentile man? It is the opinion, not the very words, of Jerome — as Ambrose holds and agrees with him — that each was called Joakim, both the one who is placed at the end of the set of fourteen, and the one who is placed at the beginning of the third; and that both — Jeconiah and Joakim — are the same. Hence it must be noted that Josiah had three sons: Joakim, who is also Eliakim; Joathan; and Zedekiah. Now when Josiah had died, Joathas reigned in his place, namely the middle son; and when he had been captured by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and imprisoned, he set up his firstborn brother Joakim as king, imposing a tribute on him; afterward Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, having overcome the king of Egypt, besieged Jerusalem, and captured Joakim, whom he sent back to Jerusalem under tribute. But afterward, when Joakim wished to rebel against the king of Babylon, trusting in the help of the king of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar went up against Jerusalem, and seized him, and killed him, and set up his son Joachim in his place, whom he also named Jeconiah after his father's name; and when this was done, Nebuchadnezzar, fearing lest this one, mindful of his father's death, should ally himself with the king of Egypt, returned to Jerusalem and besieged it; and this Jeconiah, or Joachim, namely the son of the other, on the advice of Jeremiah handed himself over to King Nebuchadnezzar, along with his wife and his sons; and these are properly said to have been carried away into the deportation. But Nebuchadnezzar set up Zedekiah, the brother of his father, as king over him, and led Joachim himself away into Babylon; and it is of him that it is afterward said: "and after the deportation." But why was he named Jeconiah, when his name was Joachim? And it must be said that this name was imposed by the prophet, namely Jeremiah; Jeremiah 22:24: "Thus says the Lord: If Jeconiah the son of Joakim, king of Judah, were a ring on my right hand, I would pluck him thence"; and further on: "Is this man Jeconiah a broken and worthless vessel?" And therefore he is named by the Evangelist rather by this name, so that it might be shown that the Evangelist agrees with the prophet. Note also that although it is the same name, it is nevertheless written in different ways. For the name of the first Joakim is written with a k, and he seems to be called Joakim; but that of the second is written with a ghimel, whence he is called Joachim: and therefore they have different interpretations. For the first is interpreted "resurrection"; but the second, "the preparation of the Lord." Second, it is asked why it says "Jeconiah and his brothers." For there were many among the kings who had brothers, yet it is never said, nor is mention made, of their brothers. And it must be said, according to Ambrose, that wherever mention is made of brothers — as when it says "Judah and his brothers," and "Perez and Zerah, of Tamar" — this signifies that they were equal in holiness or in wickedness. But these three are all evil. Otherwise it can be said that the reason is that each one of these brothers reigned, as is clear from what has been said, whereas this was not the case with the brothers of the other kings. Third, a question is asked about what is said, "in the deportation." It seems false, because Josiah never was deported. And it must be said that this is to be taken according to divine foreknowledge, according to which it was ordained that those whom he was then begetting were to be deported. Or it must be said that "in the deportation" is the same as "near the deportation," or with it already imminent.”

“And Asa begat Josaphat,.... Called Jehoshaphat, Kg1 15:24 whom Asa begat of Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi, Kg1 22:42. He also was a very good prince. And Josaphat begat Joram; called Jehoram, Kg1 22:50 to whom his father gave the kingdom, because he was the firstborn, Ch2 21:3. And Joram begat Ozias; called Uzziah, Ch2 26:1 and Azariah, Kg2 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.”

“. Joram begot Ozias , three generations are omitted, as we find in 2 Paraliponenon xxii; for there, Joram begot Ochozias, and Ochozias begot Joas, and Joas begot Amazias, and Amazias begot Ozias . This omission is not material, the design of St. Matthew being only to shew the Jews that Jesus, their Messias, was of the family of David; and he is equally the son, or the descendent of David, though the said three generations be left out: for Ozias may be called the son of Joram, though Joram was his great-grandfather. (Witham) — It is thought that St. Matthew omitted these three kings, Ochozias, Joas, and Amazias, to preserve the distribution of his genealogy into three parts, each of fourteen generations; and, perhaps, also on account of their impiety, or rather on account of the sentence pronounced against the house of Achab, from which they were descended by their mother Athalia. (3 Kings xxi. 21.) (Calmet)”

“What the Holy Spirit testified through the Prophet, saying, that He would cut off every male from the house of Ahab, and Jezebel, that Jehu the son of Nausi fulfilled, and received the promise that his children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel. As great a blessing then as was given upon the house of Ahab, so great a curse was given on the house of Joram, because of the wicked daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, that his sons to the fourth generation should be cut out of the number of the Kings. Thus his sin descended on his posterity as it had been written, I will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. (Exod. 20:5.) Thus see how dangerous it is to marry with the seed of the ungodly.”

“Mystically, David is Christ, who overcame Golias, that is, the Devil. Urias, i. e. God is my light, is the Devil who says, I will be like the Highest. (Is. 14:14.) To Him the Church was married, when Christ on the Throne of the majesty of His Father loved her, and having made her beautiful, united her to Himself in wedlock. Or Urias is the Jewish nation who through the Law boasted of their light. From them Christ took away the Law, having taught it to speak of Himself. Bersabee is ‘the well of satiety,’ that is, the abundance of spiritual grace.”