Matthew Poole and continuators on Matthew 1:8

8 And Asa begat Josaphat, and Josaphat begate Joram, and Joram begat Ozias.

Iehosaphat here called Iosaphat, in the Greek (they having no Letter to express the Hebrew [non-Latin text not transcribed] by) was the Son of Asa, a good Son of a good Father, 2 Chron. 17.1, 2. he Reigned twenty five years, 1 Kin. 22.42. Iehoram (here called Ioram) succeeded him in his Kingdom, he slew his Brethren, he walked in the ways of Ahab, 2 Chron. 21.2.6. he Reigned but eight years, lived, and dyed wickedly, and was buried infamously, 2 Chr. 21.20. But here ariseth another Difficulty from what is said, Ioram begate Ozias. It is certain that he did not beget him immediately, for Vzziah was the fourth from Ioram. Iehoram or Ioram begat Ahaziah, he was his youngest Son, he lived but one year as King, 2 Chron. 21.1, 2. then Athaliah usurped the Kingdom for six years, not counting her Usurpation. Ioash the Son of Ahaziah Reigned forty years, 2 Chron. 24.1. He dies, 2 Kin. 12.21. And Amaziah his Son Reigned in his stead, 2 Chron. 26.1. He was the Father of Vzziah called Azariah, 2 Kin. 14.21. So that when it is said: That Ioram begate Oziah, we must only understand, that Vzziah lineally descended from Ioram, thus, v. 1. Christ is called the Son of David, The Son of Abraham. Thus the Iews said, We have Abraham to our Father, and Elizabeth is said to be of the Daughters of Aaron, Luk. 1.5. But it is a greater Question, why the Evangelist leaves out Ahaziah, Ioash and Amaziah who were all three lawful Princes, and rightly descended from the Family of David. To pass by various Conjectures, the best account I find given of it is this. 1. It is manifest the Evangelist had a design to divide all the Generations from Abraham to Christ into three Periods. The first of which should contain the Growing State of the Iewish Common-Wealth, till it came at the heighth which was in Davids time. The second should contain its Flourishing State; which was from Davids time till the first carrying into Captivity. The third should contain its declining State, from the first carrying them into Captivity to the coming of Christ. 2. He designed to reduce all the Generations in each Period to fourteen, this appeareth from v. 17. Now altho the first Period contained exactly fourteen Descents or Generations, yet in the second there was manifestly seventeen, so as the Evangelist was obliged to leave out three to bring them to the number of fourteen; now tho it be a little too Curious to inquire why the Evangelist chose to leave out these three: Ahaziah, Ioash, and Amaziah, rather then any other three, yet there is the probable good Account of it given by learned Men, who have waded into these Speculations. Ahaziah was the Son of Iehoram by Athaliah the Daughter of Ahab, 2 Chron. 21.6. Ioash her Grand-child, Amaziah her Great Grand-child. Now God had cursed the house of Ahab, and threatned to root out all his House, 1 Kin. 21.21. This (as is supposed) made the Evangelist, who was necessitated to leave out three to bring the Generations to fourteen, rather to chuse to leave out these Princes, who were of Ahabs half Blood, then any others. If any say why then did he not leave out more? Besides that he was not obliged any other way (then as he would keep to his number to leave out these) he knew Gods Threatnings of Children, for the sins of Parents, usually terminate in the third, and fourth Generation.