# Jeconiahs curse and the two genealogies of Christ



## blakerussell

Alright, so this one has been driving me wild. I've done a decent amount of research on the net and just wanted to see if anyone else has stumbled across this one (I'm sure someone has).

God pronounces a curse on Coniah (Jeconiah) in Jeremiah 22. The verse of importance is 30 which I will put here.

"Thus says the LORD:"Write this man down as childless,
a man who shall not succeed in his days,
for none of his offspring shall succeed
in sitting on the throne of David
and ruling again in Judah."

Here is where the "problem" lies. Jeconiah is listed in Matthew 1's genealogy. 
Two things have been suggested here. 

The curse was lifted because Jeconiah repented (though this is not mentioned in scripture, at least to my knowledge it is not).
Many say it is implied because Zerubbabel (descendant of jeconiah) was blessed. Here are two verses side by side to explain what I mean.

Jeremiah 22:24-5
"As I live, declares the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off and give you into the hand of those who seek your life, into the hand of those of whom you are afraid, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of the Chaldeans."

Then later in Haggai 2:23
On that day, declares the LORD of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the LORD, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares the LORD of hosts."

(note that shealtiel is Jeconiahs son). 
So we have the reference of God taking the signet ring (coniah) off his right hand, and then zerubbabel is said to be made like a signet ring. This is the passage where some say it is implied the curse had been lifted.

Or the other option is that the matthew genealogy is only a legal one. 
This would mean the luke genealogy is Mary's. However, the luke genelogy runs into the same problem as the Matthew genealogy. 

Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are mentioned after Jeconiah in Matthew 1. Both Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are also mentioned in luke 3. 

Are these the same shealtiels and Zerubbabels? Am I crazy for letting this confuse the heck out of me and trip me up? This is really the only "apparent bible contradiction" which has ever tripped me up.

I don't mean to open a , I'm only looking for an answer and figured there's someone here who knows better than I.
-Blake.


----------



## BJClark

blakerussell;

I haven't studied it, but at first glance this is what I see.



> "Thus says the LORD:"Write this man down as childless,
> a man who shall not succeed in his days,
> for none of his offspring shall succeed
> in sitting on the throne of David
> and ruling again in Judah."



What is it his offspring shall not succeed at? 

Sitting on the throne of David, ruling again in Judah..

Christ was not a physical blood descendant of Joseph..but Joseph raised Him as His own, thus He was his descendant..but not the physical offspring..


----------



## py3ak

You may find Fairbairn's discussion of the two genealogies illuminating.

I studied this some time ago, and after a while it's easy to go cross-eyed! But in Luke 3:27 Salathiel is said to be the son of Neri, not of Jeconiah.

Jeconiah and Jehoiakim were both cursed (Jeremiah 36:30). In the curse upon (Je)Coniah, the curse upon Jehoiakim was fulfilled. At that point, the line of Solomon comes to an end, and the inheritance passes to the line of Nathan. After David, Matthew traces descent through Solomon, but Luke traces it through Nathan. But they coincide at Salathiel and Zorobabel (Lucan spelling), precisely because it was at that point that the _legal_ descent of the kingship and the physical descent coincided for a time before they diverged again, to coincide once more in Matthan, and then in Jesus.


----------



## TimV

Very interesting, Ruben, thanks.


----------



## blakerussell

py3ak said:


> You may find Fairbairn's discussion of the two genealogies illuminating.
> 
> I studied this some time ago, and after a while it's easy to go cross-eyed! But in Luke 3:27 Salathiel is said to be the son of Neri, not of Jeconiah.
> 
> Jeconiah and Jehoiakim were both cursed (Jeremiah 36:30). In the curse upon (Je)Coniah, the curse upon Jehoiakim was fulfilled. At that point, the line of Solomon comes to an end, and the inheritance passes to the line of Nathan. After David, Matthew traces descent through Solomon, but Luke traces it through Nathan. But they coincide at Salathiel and Zorobabel (Lucan spelling), precisely because it was at that point that the _legal_ descent of the kingship and the physical descent coincided for a time before they diverged again, to coincide once more in Matthan, and then in Jesus.



The question that arises in my mind is this. If the physical line of nathan coincides with salathiel and zorobabel (offspring of jeconiah) then wouldn't the curse still be applicable to luke's genealogy? After all, the curse mentioned in jeremiah says none of his offspring will sit on the throne of david. I don't see how the curse is nullified in the luke genealogy if the shealtiel and zerrubabel are the same ones mentioned in the matthew genealogy (if they are the same people, they are still descendants of jeconiah). Do you catch what I'm saying?

Or, is the curse nullified somehow because both are listed under Neri in luke's genealogy? This is all very confusing. Talk about a headache. 

(edit)
-I did find some fairly interesting information here.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html


----------



## py3ak

The curse applied to the physical descendants of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah. Salathiel was the _legal_ heir of Jeconiah, that is, the right to the throne passed to him. However, he was the physical descendant of Nathan, and so the curse on Jeconiah did not include him. If a king has no living issue, who is next in the line of succession? That is the question Matthew answers. After Jeconiah was cursed and the descent couldn't continue through him (his sons were killed before his eyes), it had to pass to another branch of the family - that descended from David through Nathan, rather than through Solomon.


----------



## blakerussell

py3ak said:


> The curse applied to the physical descendants of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah. Salathiel was the _legal_ heir of Jeconiah, that is, the right to the throne passed to him. However, he was the physical descendant of Nathan, and so the curse on Jeconiah did not include him. If a king has no living issue, who is next in the line of succession? That is the question Matthew answers. After Jeconiah was cursed and the descent couldn't continue through him (his sons were killed before his eyes), it had to pass to another branch of the family - that descended from David through Nathan, rather than through Solomon.



Ok cool stuff.
So this would mean that the matthew genealogy represents the line of david through solomon legally.
but the luke genealogy is the physical one, which comes through David through nathan and avoids the jeconiah curse.

Am I getting this right?

I do suppose what has brought about all these questions was an argument I stumbled across by a jewish person stating that Christ could not be the messiah because the Messiah had to come through David _and Solomon _ (which I've never heard before) where he referenced 2 samuel 7:14-17, and pariticularly this passage in 1 chronicles stating "Of all my sons—and the LORD has given me many—he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. He said to me: 'Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. _I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws, as is being done at this time_." 

Of course, I was not under the impression that the text I included (1 chronicles 28:5-7) was messianic prophecy to begin with. Either way, this particular person stated that because the matthew genealogy which included Solomon also included Jeconiah, that particular genealogy must be voided. He also argued the lukan genealogy is of no value because it is Nathan (son of david) who this genealogy decends through. 

Because of Jeconiahs curse (and his claim that the messiah must also come through solomon, which I have never heard until that moment by the way), he claims the genealogys are useless and Christ's messiahship canceled. 

So, I'm just trying to understand and tackle the alleged problems in case there is a next time, or discussion. It's also helpful to understand these genealogies as well I think.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Not a single person in Jesus' day could produce evidence that he failed the _prophetic requirements_ to be the Messiah. If someone could have questioned his lineage, I'm pretty sure they would have.

Compare to the same absence of resistance respecting his virgin birth. It is possible that someone made a "snide" comment (in Jn.8:41) concerning Jesus' obscure paternity, but the only way that remark could have held water was if they were aware of Joseph's adoptive claim to him.

If the Jews were expecting a "seed of woman" and a "virgin birth" for Messiah (as I believe Matthew's and Luke's testimonies amply prove), then if someone could have produced an earthly father, Jesus' Messianic claims would have been nullified immediately. But this they also could not do.

So, it seems plain from the NT witness that the Jews of Jesus day were, however grudgingly, satisfied that Jesus met whatever lineal requirements were necessary to be Israel's king.


----------



## py3ak

A simple comeback to the Solomonic claim is that Solomon was far from unswerving in carrying out God's commands. The Messiah had to be a descendant of David, but that descent did not have to go through Solomon.

Yes, Matthew presents the transmission of the right to the crown; Luke shows the physical descent; obviously those two have to be together in David, and would need to meet up again after David, which it does in Shealtiel and Zorobabel, in Matthat (Matthan) and in Jesus.


----------



## blakerussell

py3ak said:


> The curse applied to the physical descendants of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah. Salathiel was the _legal_ heir of Jeconiah, that is, the right to the throne passed to him. However, he was the physical descendant of Nathan, and so the curse on Jeconiah did not include him. If a king has no living issue, who is next in the line of succession? That is the question Matthew answers. After Jeconiah was cursed and the descent couldn't continue through him (his sons were killed before his eyes), it had to pass to another branch of the family - that descended from David through Nathan, rather than through Solomon.



I'm certainly not well studied enough, but I've got another question just out of curiosity. Where exactly is it stated that Jeconiah's sons were killed. Is there one passage? Is it a collection of passages? Is it possible to get some references (I'm currently hunting for them at this moment. If i find them, I'll retract this question)


----------



## py3ak

I don't have the verses before me at the moment, but you can find that in 2 Kings 25, in 2 Chronicles 36, and in Jeremiah 52 (within the first 14 verses).


----------



## blakerussell

py3ak said:


> I don't have the verses before me at the moment, but you can find that in 2 Kings 25, in 2 Chronicles 36, and in Jeremiah 52 (within the first 14 verses).



Thanks for the references. I must be missing something however. The passages say that Zedekiahs (Jeconiah's nephew) sons were killed before his eyes, not Jeconiahs.


----------



## py3ak

You're right, it was Zedekiah. The perils of answering questions by memory! That Jeconiah's children were slain is an inference from Jeremiah 22:30. The parallel of Zedekiah definitely tells you that killing someone's children as a way to add to their punishment was not unheard of, but we don't have the same kind of direct reference.


----------



## blakerussell

Cool. I think we've covered all bases here. Just to clarify to make sure things are right. Matthew's genealogy represents the legal line. Because the curse affects jeconiahs physical descendants only (this is deduced by the hebrew word zara meaning seedwhich is used in Jeremiah 22:30. The word seed certainly means a biological child or descendant). The curse has no effect on someone who is legally adopted. Seeing as how Jesus was not a biological descendant of Joseph... well you get the idea.

The lukan genealogy is the physical or biological line proceeding from David/Nathan. 

-Blake. (Thanks very much for all the information. I can become obsessive with things like this. At times they can even and do trip me up.)


----------



## py3ak

I guess I would tweak it a little - since _Salathiel_ was not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, there is no need to worry about the curse.


----------



## TimV

From Ezekiel 1



> 5And from the midst of it came the likeness of(N) four living creatures.(O) And this was their appearance: they had a human likeness, 6(P) but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot. And they sparkled(Q) like burnished bronze. 8Under their wings(R) on their four sides(S) they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9their wings touched one another.(T) Each one of them went straight forward,(U) without turning as they went. 10As for the likeness of their faces,(V) each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle.



Years ago someone told me a secret to winning those Bible trivia games. You assume that the 4 living creatures going out to all the earth are the Gospels, and Christ is portrayed in Matthew as the Lion, or King, in Mark the beast of burden, or servant, in Luke the Man and in John the eagle, or God's Messenger.

If what this thread is saying is true, there would be another example of this, with Matthew concerned with Christ's legal Kingship, and Luke His humanity.

Interesting............


----------



## blakerussell

py3ak said:


> I guess I would tweak it a little - since _Salathiel_ was not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, there is no need to worry about the curse.



Ah. I do suppose this is true. I take it that this is gathered from the lukan genealogy. Is this information found elsewhere?
Sorry, I just like to be as precise as I can with just about everything.
-Blake.


----------



## py3ak

Yes, from Luke 3:27 it appears that Salathiel was the son of Neri.


----------

