“Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, who fathered Joram. Joram was the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah was the father of Jotham.” Matthew 1:8 has been the cause of much deliberation. For those of us not very familiar with the kingdom age of Judah, there is little to notice. Those that go back and trace the kings of Judah become confused. Let us briefly review the King line from Jehoshaphat.

The end of 1 Kings records Jehoshaphat’s son: Joram (or Jehoram) becoming king over Judah. This is the man that married Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. He reigned at the same time as Ahab’s son: Jehoram (also see 2 Kings 8:16). Joram had a son who took his place named Ahaziah. Now the names Ahaziah and Uzziah are often confused with each other, but the name Uzziah is closer associated with the name Azariah instead of Ahaziah. We see from the OT accounts that this is not the same man that Matthew records. Ahaziah was judged by Jehu, and his son, Joash, was spared from murder at the hands of Athaliah, his grandmother. Joash (or Jehoash) became king when he was 7 years old (2 Kings 12:1). When Joash was assassinated, his son Amaziah took over (2 Kings 12:21). Amaziah was also assassinated, and the people made his son Azariah (Uzziah) king of Judah (2 Kings 14:21). 2 Kings 15:7 specifies that Jotham was the son of Uzziah. This brings us back finally to Matthew’s list.

Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are skipped in Matthew’s account. Why does he skip these kings? Was it a mistake? Did Matthew misread his history and no astute Jew correct him? If we are to believe that Matthew did this on purpose we must attempt to give some reasons why. We cannot dictate on his literary freedom, but we can offer factors that he may have considered.

The first and simplest reason could just be that he left out these three kings solely for the purpose of the number 14. Matthew needed 14 generations to fit together, so he picked these for no other reason. But if it was purely for convenience sake, why remove names from the middle of the kings line instead of the beginning or end, and why not also exclude either Joram or Jotham instead of Jehoiakim (Eliakim) later on?

It is tough to make blanket statements about character, since there doesn’t appear to be much consistency in how it is stated in the text.  Joram and Ahaziah are defined in the OT as “following in the ways of the kings of Israel.” Yet Joram is included and Ahaziah is excluded. Joash and Uzziah both tried to serve God and then defiled the temple, yet Uzziah is included and Joash is excluded. Jeconiah who was mentioned above was the son of Josiah, but is also skipped over by Matthew. We know nothing else about his character other than he was evil. It is hard to think he was any worse than his relatives around that time. By examining character it does not appear that Matthew excluded them for their evil nature.

An explanation for the set of three kings is based on the connection to Jezabel and the unfortunate union between the Northern Kings and southern kings. Matthew’s concern would be the kingly line. Although Jehoshaphat and Joram united with the Northern kings, Joram’s children had claim to Northern thrones and vise versa. How far would one have to skip down the line before the line becomes palatable again? Deuteronomy 5:9 along with other parallel passages stress the punishment of idol worship extending to the third and fourth generations. If Matthew was intending to avoid “bad blood” of the pagan northern kings, then this would be an advantageous way to deal with it.

There are few other correlations between these kings. Yet I am actually doubtful that Matthew put too much thought into it himself. I believe the answer for Matthew’s list comes from possible Jewish tradition. I realize that proposed tradition is not a solid basis for many theories. However with the above statements in place I think we can make a reasonable conclusion. Matthew wasn’t against “bad blood” based on race; many of the names he includes had pagan and gentile backgrounds. Nor does it seem to be based on character, since many of the included names were worse off than a man like Joash. I believe, then, that he is using preserved tradition about the king line. It is not a far fetched theory that the orthodox Jews may have resented the three generations from Ahab and Jezebel. Especially since Jehu wiped out Ahaziah and Athaliah took over the Jewish throne for a time, that entire section of rulers comes across as illegitimate. Matthew is not being un-factual by listing Azariah as the son of Jorum. As described in the skipping generations article, “begetting” can pass to any descendent. If a Jew wanted to ignore the line of Jezebel in the Jewish kings, waiting three generations is a scriptural length of time. Jehoiakim could be in a similar traditional boat. He may be passed over so readily in tradition because he only ruled for three months. He was otherwise completely insignificant.

The explanation is still based on what we know from the OT. No new information is supplied except the conjecture that the formatted skips were already acceptable. The reason I believe Matthew’s reading is because of tradition instead of his own instigation is due to the lack of explanation. He doesn’t make any point about these skips. Since the reasons are mum, it seems reasonable to me that the format was already in place when Matthew decided to look for his fourteen generations.