top of page
Search

MATTHEW 1:8 — Is Joram the Father of Uzziah or of Ahaziah?



One of the commonly cited difficulties in the genealogical records of the Bible arises in Matthew 1:8, which reads: “Asa fathered Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat fathered Joram, Joram fathered Uzziah.” This verse, taken from the genealogical list of Jesus the Messiah, presents what appears to be a discrepancy when compared to the genealogical records in the Old Testament, particularly 1 Chronicles 3:11–12 and 2 Kings 8–15. According to those historical texts, Joram (also known as Jehoram) was not the immediate father of Uzziah, but rather the father of Ahaziah, who was followed by Joash and then Amaziah, who finally fathered Uzziah (also called Azariah). Thus, three generations—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—are omitted in Matthew's genealogy.


The question is: Is Matthew in error by claiming that Joram fathered Uzziah? A serious examination from the historical-grammatical perspective affirms that the biblical text remains accurate, trustworthy, and inerrant when properly understood. This article will explore the nature of genealogical records in Scripture, the theological and textual significance of Matthew’s genealogy, and provide a reasoned explanation for the names included and excluded without undermining the integrity of the inspired text.



I. The Old Testament Genealogy: The Historical Lineage Between Joram and Uzziah

To understand the issue, we must first review the biblical data found in the Old Testament. The royal lineage from Joram to Uzziah includes:


1 Chronicles 3:11–12 (Literal Text):“Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah his son…”


Also:

2 Kings 8:25–26:“In the twelfth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign…”


2 Kings 11:2; 12:1; 14:1; 15:1:These passages confirm the succession from Ahaziah to Joash, then Amaziah, then Azariah (Uzziah).


So, plainly, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were all kings in the Davidic line between Joram (Jehoram) and Uzziah (Azariah). Therefore, Uzziah was Joram’s great-great-grandson, not his son. This reveals an intentional omission by Matthew, not an error or contradiction. But why were these names skipped?



II. Genealogical Compression in the Ancient Near East and in Scripture


The objection presumes a modern, Western view of genealogy, assuming that every single biological generation must be recorded. However, in the Ancient Near Eastern and biblical contexts, genealogies were not strictly linear records for biological or chronological purposes. Rather, they were often theological, selective, and stylized—designed to serve specific literary and theological functions. This is observable in multiple places in both the Old and New Testaments.


For instance, in Ezra 7:1–5, Ezra’s genealogy skips several generations when compared with 1 Chronicles 6:3–14. Yet Ezra’s lineage is still correct because he is "son of" in the Hebrew sense—descended from, not necessarily immediately fathered by—the individuals named.

Similarly, in Genesis 46:15–18, entire groups are summarized, and names are selected to reflect heads of clans or notable representatives rather than every single descendant.

This method is especially visible in biblical genealogies that trace priestly or royal lines, where not all generations are included, but only those necessary to establish legitimacy, continuity, or a specific theological purpose.



III. The Structure of Matthew’s Genealogy: The Theological Design


Matthew’s genealogy is intentionally structured into three groups of fourteen generations (Matthew 1:17):


“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.”


This threefold pattern is not coincidental; it reflects a mnemonic and theological design. The number fourteen corresponds to the numerical value of the Hebrew name David (D = 4, V = 6, D = 4, total = 14), underlining Jesus’ messianic identity as the Son of David.


To achieve this structure, Matthew intentionally omits certain names. The omission of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah is a deliberate literary device, not an error. These three were part of the cursed line following Ahab, and their reigns were spiritually disastrous. Their exclusion serves both a structural and theological function.



IV. Omissions in Genealogies: A Common Practice in Scripture


It is essential to understand that the Greek verb "γεννάω" (gennáō) used in Matthew 1:8 and elsewhere means “to beget” or “to become the ancestor of.” It does not always imply direct, immediate fatherhood. In fact, the word was commonly used in Greek literature to refer to ancestral descent, not merely parentage.


This usage is attested in Matthew 1:1, where Jesus is called the “son of David, son of Abraham.” Clearly, Jesus was not directly fathered by either of them; the term means descendant of, not immediate son of.


Thus, when Matthew 1:8 says “Joram fathered Uzziah,” it means that Uzziah descended from Joram, which is historically accurate, even if intermediate generations are omitted.



V. The Theological Implication of the Omitted Kings


One plausible explanation for the omission of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah involves their connection to the wicked house of Ahab, especially through Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, who married Joram and was the mother of Ahaziah.


2 Chronicles 22:2–4 describes Ahaziah as following the evil ways of Ahab, influenced by his mother Athaliah. The reigns of these descendants were tainted by Baal worship, bloodshed, and apostasy.


This is not to say that Matthew was morally condemning them by omission, but rather that they were theologically inconsequential to the central purpose of Matthew’s genealogy—demonstrating Jesus as the legitimate heir to David’s throne and fulfillment of messianic prophecy.


Their removal from the genealogy might also serve as a symbolic break in a corrupt portion of the line, illustrating divine judgment and the preservation of the messianic line despite the spiritual failures of Judah’s monarchy.



VI. The Inerrancy and Reliability of Matthew’s Genealogy


To claim that Matthew’s genealogy is in error because of omitted generations is to impose modern genealogical expectations upon an ancient literary form that operated under different conventions. The omission of names for stylistic or theological reasons was accepted and widely practiced in Jewish tradition.


In fact, even the genealogies in the Old Testament skip generations in some places. For example:


1 Chronicles 6:3–14 gives the priestly lineage from Aaron to Ezra, but the time span covered makes it evident that multiple generations are omitted. Ezra is listed as the son of Seraiah, but Seraiah died in 586 B.C.E., and Ezra was active around 457 B.C.E., almost 130 years later. This demonstrates that “son of” meant descendant.


Therefore, Matthew’s genealogy, though abbreviated, is both historically accurate and theologically intentional, maintaining the essential integrity of Jesus’ Davidic lineage without compromising Scripture’s inerrancy.



VII. Refutation of Liberal-Critical Objections


Liberal-critical scholars frequently argue that Matthew made a genealogical error or conflated names due to ignorance. However, such claims are unsupported by the textual and cultural data. Matthew, a Jewish tax collector familiar with Hebrew Scriptures and genealogical norms, was writing to a Jewish audience well-versed in their own royal and tribal records.


Had Matthew erred in such an obvious way, his genealogy would have been publicly discredited by contemporaries, especially the religious leaders, scribes, and Pharisees who were deeply concerned with genealogical legitimacy. No such historical challenge is recorded.


Furthermore, the Gospel of Luke contains a separate genealogical line (Luke 3:23–38), which traces through Nathan, another son of David, indicating a legal vs. biological lineage distinction. Matthew’s genealogy appears to trace the legal, royal succession (through Solomon), while Luke provides the biological line through Mary (via Nathan). Thus, Matthew’s omissions and structure are contextually and literarily valid.



VIII. Conclusion: Joram Was the Ancestor, Not Immediate Father, of Uzziah


Therefore, in light of historical context, linguistic usage, genealogical conventions, theological structure, and scriptural integrity, Matthew’s statement that “Joram fathered Uzziah” is accurate in the sense intended by the ancient text. The term “fathered” (Greek: ἐγέννησεν) denotes ancestral linkage, not immediate fatherhood. The omission of three kings serves literary and theological purposes and does not undermine the reliability of Scripture. There is no contradiction between Matthew 1:8 and the genealogical records in 1 Chronicles or 2 Kings.


This difficulty, when properly examined, reveals not an error, but a deeper layer of biblical intentionality, and underscores the integrity of God’s Word across generations and covenants.


About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


YOU MAY ALSO LIKE


Investigate the claim of Jesus as Jehovah. Enhance your biblical understanding. Start your exploration today!



RECOMMENDED READING FOR CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND EVANGELISM


Comentários

BOOKS FOR YOUTH - Real Faith. Real Struggles. Real Answers.

OUTSIDER
thirteen reasons to keep living
WOKEISM
THERE IS A REBEL IN THE HOUSE
Shadows of Main Street

Christian Publishing House—Who Are We?

Christian Publishing House began in July 2005 with the aim of assisting Christians worldwide who lack a foundational grasp of biblical teachings. This deficiency hinders them from experiencing the complete joy of united worship with God. Our mission is to enable all Christians to deepen and broaden their comprehension of God’s Word, equipping them to apply it more effectively in their daily lives.

Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

Christian Publishing House Blog Header
X Social Media Header

Christian Book Publishing, Publishing Christian Books, Christian Bookstore, Christiam eBook Publishing, Publishing Books

bottom of page