The Genealogies of Jesus Christ Vindicated

 

The genealogy of Christ which has been recorded by the blessed evangelists in the gospels of Matthew and Luke has proved a focus for Jews who wish to assault our faith in Christ. The stock from which the Messiah would be born is set forth under three determinations in the Old Testament: (1) He would be from the posterity of Abraham. “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 12:2-3); and later it is further added, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (Gen. 21:12); (2) The next limitation is that the Christ would be from the tribe of Judah. “The scepter shall not depart from Judah…” (Gen. 49:10). Most of the prophets and teachers of Israel were from other tribes in the era of the Law. Moses sprung from Levi, Joshua and Samuel from Ephraim, Gideon from Manesseh, and Saul was from Benjamin. However, the rule and dominance of Judah came with the reign of King David (1 Chron. 28:4), as will be further declared in our exposition of Jacob’s prophecy in Genesis 49:10. And it is from this tribe that our Lord Jesus Christ came, according to His human nature. “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah” (Heb. 7:14); “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Rom. 1:3); (3) The Messiah had to be descended from King David, as is fully promised to him in 2 Samuel 7, though some of what is said there applies more peculiarly to Solomon. “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne” (Psalm 132:11) And it is for this reason that Matthew begins his gospel, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matt. 1:1) And in this manner our Lord was designated by others during His life and ministry (Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; John 7:42), and afterwards by the apostles: “And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave their testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” (Acts 13:22-23). It was also the confession of the Jews themselves, both new and amongst them who live among us today. “Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.” (Matt. 22:42)

Opponents of the faith, both Jews and others, have often used the genealogies contained in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 as an attempt to discredit Christ and the New Testament Scriptures. And they find on this basis to attempt to persuade the simple and unlearned that Christ was not truly descended from David, and therefore could not have been the Messiah. It is therefore fitting to say a few things concerning it. And as a preliminary observation, I find it quite interesting that the same things which the Jews use with this topic to attack Christ and the credibility of the the New Testament are quite similar in nature, method, and tone to what atheists will use against the entire Bible, which of course includes their childish “reasoning” against the Old Testament, supposing there to be contradictions within it. In this, they are like a man who sets his own house on fire so that the flame might reach his neighbor’s home and destroy it also. Such is the foolishness of these pernicious liars in their war against Christ, the son of David!

Given the many difficulties with which interpreters entangle themselves in the harmonization of Matthew 1 and Luke 3, the most fitting way to approach it is to address it in a one-to-one manner, so that we may not be overwhelmed. Antecedent to our answering of different doubts and questions, we may make a few general observations which will better serve for the better clearing of the truth. 1st, the genealogies of the Jews were reckoned in two ways: one is by way of natural generation, the other by way of law, where levirate marriages were included, in which a brother married the wife of his brother who died, and had children through her for the sake of the deceased brother (as the law is formally laid out in Deut. 25:5-10). Therefore, Julius Africanus says in his Epistle to Aristedes, “neither of the evangelists is in error, as the one reckons by nature and the other by law.” And the law of Israel was that the son of a levirate marriage was reckoned not with the biological father, but with the deceased man. “that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.” (Deut. 25:6) 2nd, one may be a son in two senses: natural (as Cain, Abel, and Seth were the sons of Adam) and legally, usually through some form of adoption. This latter will become important in our present discourse, and has many particular precedents in the biblical history: (1) Obed, who was the grandfather of David, had Boaz for his natural father, but is also considered to be the son of Mahlon (in the legal sense according to levirate marriage), Ruth’s first husband who died before her marriage to Boaz (Ruth 4:10). (2) Ephraim and Menasseh were begotten by Joseph in Egypt, but were adopted by his father Jacob (Genesis 48). (3), both of the evangelists’ genealogies have as their common goal the demonstration of Christ’s descent from David. Matthew traces it through Joseph to Solomon, while Luke traces the pedigree of Mary all the way back to Nathan, another son of David. As Julius Africanus says, “If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, Matthan is found to be the third from the end, who begot Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son was Heli the father of Joseph.” That Luke’s genealogy traces through Nathan is also clear from the repetition of the names Matthata (Luke 3:31), Matthat (verse 29), Mattathias (verses 25-26), and Matthat (verse 24)---all being modifications of נָתָן‎. This solution in my opinion is somewhat stretched, since Matthat and Matthan also have different fathers. We ought not multiply entities needlessly. 3rd, Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham, and descends to Christ, while Luke’s begins with Christ and goes backwards to Adam, the son of God. It is known to all the purpose of Matthew in writing for the sake of the Jews, in order to induce their acceptance of Christ as the true Son of David, and Luke perhaps traced His pedigree to Adam, in order that it might be known that the Messiah was a Savior to the whole world, both Jew and Gentile. So says Calvin in part 1 of his Harmony of the Evangelists. Concerning which genealogy was the legal one, and which was the natural pedigree, interpreters and commentators are divided on this, though both certainly agree that no true contradiction exists between the evangelists. It was the view of Julius Africanus that the list of Matthew was the natural ancestry of Christ, while Luke established his legal or royal chain to the throne of David.  Patrick Fairbairn (1805-1974), the celebrated theologian of Free Church of Scotland and renowned commentator on Scripture, says that both genealogies are tracing Joseph’s ancestry, but through both natural and legal lines (Hermeneutical Manual: Or, Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1858], pgs. 189-193). Following Hugo Grotius, Fairbairn says that Matthew’s is the legal succession. 3rd, it is common in the biblical genealogies for a generation(s) to be passed over and omitted. And we may behold this in a number of examples: Gen. 46:26 and Ex. 1:5 enumerate the number of Jacob’s children in Egypt, and the patriarch himself is included therein. A more clear example is Gen. 10:15-16, “And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite.” In this instance, whole nations and ethnic groups are said to be begotten by Canaan, when he was merely the first patriarchal progenitor, and not necessarily the direct father. Thus, “X begat Y” can simply mean that “X is the ancestor of Y”, or that the city is called the son of the progenitor: “These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim.” (1 Chron. 2:50) Moses’ pedigree is traced back to Levi in Ex. 6:16-20, while the same pedigree is given in 1 Chron. 6:1-3—but the families of Gershon and Merari are omitted in 1 Chronicles, but listed in the book of Exodus. In 1 Chronicles 2:21-23, Jair (son of Segub) is ranked with the house of Judah and the leader of many towns in Gilead, and yet Moses places him in the tribe of Manasseh (Numbers 32:41; Deut. 3:14-15). Is there then a contradiction? Not in the slightest, for it is said in the text from 1 Chron. 2 that Hezron in his old age married the daughter of Machir, who gave birth to Segub, and that Segub gave birth to Jair. By his real physical ancestry, Jair belonged to Judah, but had his inheritance in the tribe of Manasseh, since Makir (Jair’s great-grandfather) belonged to that tribe (Num. 32:40). Our final example is Caleb, who is called the son of Jephunneh (Num. 13:6; 14:6, etc.) and is reckoned with the tribe of Judah; however, he is physically descended from the Kenezites (Num. 31:12; Josh. 14:14), who were originally perhaps related to Esau and Canaan (Gen. 15:19), which is not a strange thing, since we read that many others of different nations left Egypt with Israel (Ex. 12:38; Num. 11:4).  Therefore, he was reckoned among the sons of Judah due to his inheritance in that tribe (Num. 34:19; Josh. 15:13); for if Caleb had by birth belonged to Judah, there would have been no need for a special commandment giving him inheritance in the land allotted to that tribe after the conquest of Canaan. As one final example, one may also compare Ezra 7:3 with 1 Chronicles 6:7, in which the latter text omits the generation between Amariah and Meraioth. 4th, although Mary is not directly mentioned in the genealogy of Luke, this seems to be more from the case that women were not reckoned by the Jews in tracing descent. 5th, it is very notable that the Pharisees and Jews in the days of Christ and the apostles did not challenge that our Lord belonged to the house of David. If He did not, they would have had ample means to prove it, since they kept close records of genealogies, especially to distinguish who truly belonged to the tribes of Judah and Levi; an instance of the latter is seen in Ezra 2:62-63 and Nehemiah 7:64-65. This is also mentioned by Josephus, who said “But what is of the greatest weight with us is the succession of our priests. For we have the names of our high priests from father to son set down in our records for the interval of two thousand years.” (Against Apion, 1.30-31); and also later by the Talmudists (Kiddushin 71a). 

Q: Why is the genealogy of Christ recorded down to Joseph, when our Lord in no way proceeded from Him through natural generation, but rather by His conception in the womb of Mary, done by the power and overshadowing of the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, Joseph is said to be of the house of David (Luke 1:27; 2:4), while Mary is from the tribe of Levi on account of her relation to Elizabeth (Luke 1:5). 

A: In book 2, chapter 1 of his Harmony of the Gospels, the blessed Augustine makes a few observations on this point: [1]. Chastity is hereby recommended, and it is shown that sexual intercourse need not be that which keeps married persons together in conjugal love and affection, since the holiest Child was born to Mary, and their son, though no intercourse ever took place. But this reason does not particularly touch the question we are now approaching. [2]. Joseph is indeed truly called the father of Christ in an adoptive sense. The beginning of Luke’s genealogy reads “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23). And again, in the prior chapter “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him…And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.” (Luke 2:33, 40). Hence Christ was the son of Joseph in a close adoptive sense, not merely in the way that one may adopt a child born to one who is not his wife, whereas Christ was born to her who was indeed the wife of Joseph. Therefore Augustine says “and thus also to have been in a much closer relation the father of Christ, in so far as He was born of his wife, than would have been the case had He been only adopted from some other party?” In such a manner Christ was reckoned as the son of Joseph (Matt. 13:55; John 6:42). Some of the Jews confess indeed that “it is the one who raises who is called father and not the one who begets.” (Shemot Rabbah, 46:5). [3]. It was not the Jewish custom to render the genealogies through women, as it is said in Num. 1:26, “that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.” Hence Luke’s genealogy, if it was traced through Mary, was to be so starting from the one most near to her in kinship, and this was her husband Joseph. [4]. The assertion that Mary was from the tribe of Levi, and not from Judah, is a lie from the Jews. That Elizabeth (who was amongst the daughters of Aaron) is called her cousin here in no way prejudices Mary’s Davidic lineage, since συγγενής has a very broad scope of meaning and can refer simply to a fellow Israelite. Secondly, the law under the Old Testament was that a man was not to take a wife from outside of his tribe in the case of persevering the familial inheritance (Num. 36:5-9). In the case of Mary and Joseph, we know that they were poor since they offered the pair of turtledoves or pigeons (Luke 2:22-24), and that was explicitly delegated by the law to those who did not have enough wealth to purchase a lamb to sacrifice (Lev. 12:8). Therefore, the laws in Numbers 36 and the inheritances may not necessarily have been applicable to Mary. And yet, she would at the very least be reckoned with the tribe of Judah by marriage. However, it is even more certain that Mary was of Judah by the genealogy traced through her in Luke. If Elizabeth is to be reckoned as the literal first cousin of Mary, then this would not prove Mary to be directly descended from Levi, especially since the priests could marry women from other tribes (Lev. 21:13-14; Ezek. 44:22). Therefore, one of her parents was from Judah, and the other from Levi. 

Q: Why does Matt. 1:8 say that Joram begot Uzziah when it is clear from 2 Kings 8:24 and 1 Chron. 3:11-12 that Joram begat Ahaziah, Joash, and Ahaziah? Three kings are omitted and a leap is made from Joram to Uzziah, who was the son of Amaziah (2 Chron. 26:1), not Joram.

A: As for the omission itself, it has already been with abundant clarity that it is a common practice in the biblical genealogies of both Testaments for some generations or names to be passed over and not inserted. As said in the preface to this topic, let the Jews take heed lest they burn themselves when trying to set fire to our faith. But to this particular case; [1]. For one, if these three kings were inserted this would not have been consistent with the limitation set out in Matt. 1:17 that the list compromises 3 sets of 14 generations. For if these were added, then we would be left with about 16-17 generations. However, this will certainly not answer the Jews and other men who assault the Gospels and their authenticity as divine revelation. It is the opinion of this author that the best explanation is that the omission of these three sons of Joram is the fulfillment of the curse pronounced upon Ahab in 1 Kings 21:21-22 and 2 Kings 9:8. This accords nicely with the Lord’s statement that His curse lasts to the 3rd and 4th generations (Ex. 20:5; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9). [2]. As for Uzziah is called the son of Joram, the answer is obvious: in the language of the Scriptures, “son” may often designate the descendents rather than immediate generation. Hence Jews say “Abraham is our father” (John 8:33, 39) and Christ is called both the son of David and the son of Abraham. The woman that Christ healed is called a daughter of Abraham in Luke 13:16. A difficulty has been raised by the Jesuit scholar Juan Maldonatus (1533-1583) in his Commentary on the Holy Gospels, which is that Ahaziah would appear to be traced to Omri rather than Ahab, since Ahaziah’s mother is the usurper Athaliah, the daughter of Omri (2 Kings 9:26). However, Athaliah was truly descended from Ahab (1 Kings 16:28-30), and Ahaziah is called Ahab’s son-in-law (2 Kings 8:27), and it is for this reason that King Jehu pursued Ahaziah to kill him (2 Kings 9:27), since he was of Ahab’s posterity.

Q: Why is there a Cainan mentioned in the lineage between Arphaxad and Shelah (Luke 3:36), when no such person is recorded either in Gen. 11:12 nor 1 Chron. 1:18, 24?

A: There are some who would say that Καϊνὰμ was a later insertion in the text by a scribe, and not originally penned by Luke himself. However, the vast majority of the manuscripts include it, and therefore militate against such a solution. A few other considerations shall further aid in the solution of this difficulty, Lord willing. (1) This name is present in the Septuagint’s rendering of Gen. 10:24 and 11:12 (as it is represented in the earliest extant manuscript, Papyrus 911 from the Berlin collection). Therefore this difficulty is primarily concerning a difference between the LXX and the MT, and not any real conflict between Luke and Moses. (2) It is plainly false to think that Luke is the only source which mentions this figure named Cainan who lived during the postdiluvian period. In fact, the pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees (dated by most to the 2nd century BC) mentions just such a man as the son of Arphaxad. “In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it.” (Jubilees, 8:1-4). On this basis, a scribal occurred at some point during the transmission process of the biblical manuscripts. Furthermore, the earliest manuscripts which are alleged concerning the absence of Kainan from Luke (the papyri P75 and P4) may be reconstructed in a way in which Καϊνὰμ is indeed present in the text, but it faded away and was corrupted from these two manuscripts over time. The full evidence for this may be seen in the paper co-authored by Henry B. Smith Jr. and Kris Udd (“On the Authenticity of Kainan, Son of Arpachshad,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 24 (2019): 119–154). 

Q: Why does Luke call Joseph the son of Heli (Luke 3:23), but Matthew calls him the son of Jacob (Matt. 1:16)?

A: (1) Jacob was the natural father of Joseph, for it is said in Matt. 1:16 that he “begat” (ἐγέννησεν) Joseph. However, Luke does not say this of Heli—and this makes the solution quite easy, so that Heli was Joseph’s father-in-law. Julius Africanus says that Heli died without sons, and that Jacob married his wife (Deut. 25:5), and then gave birth to Joseph. Whether or not such a thing took place between Heli and Jacob is tangential to the point in question, namely that a man can be called the son of another in a civil rather than natural sense—as Naomi calls her daughters-in-law “her daughters” (Ruth 1:11-12). The patriarch Jacob is said to have been consoled by his daughters (plural) on hearing of Joseph’s death (Gen. 37:35), and yet we know that he only conceived Dinah. If therefore Heli was the father of Mary, he may be called the father of Joseph upon his marriage to his daughter. (2) It was the opinion of Julius Africanus that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers with the same mother. When Matthan died, Melchi (descended from Nathan) begot Heli. Jacob is listed as the son of Matthan (Matt. 1:15), and Heli is called the son of Matthat (Luke 3:24). Patrick Fairbairn opines that Ματθάν and Μαθθὰτ are but two names for the same person; indeed, there is only the difference of a letter or two between them. And therefore, Jacob and Heli may have been brothers. This solution is rejected by the logic of the first, however. (3) Not a few learned interpreters render ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ as a parenthetical phrase in the verse, so that the sense is “Jesus (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph), the son of Heli.” 

Q: Why is the genealogy of Luke traced through Nathan (Luke 3:31) when only Solomon was properly to be the establisher of the Davidic royalty, and none other than him (1 Chron. 22:9-10; Psalm 89:28-39)?

A: If we examine the promises given to King David under the Old Testament, it is abundantly clear that they were (1) of a conditional nature, assured upon Solomon’s obedience and faithfulness to the Lord, which we know did not place, sadly; (2) of a permanent nature, in that the promises were to have their ultimate fulfillment in the coming Messiah. What is important is that promises are first and foremost to David himself, that the throne of his kingdom would always endure according to the covenant of God, as may be seen in many passages—such as the following:---

“My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah. But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.” (Psalm 89:28-39); “Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.” (1 Kings 9:5); “Ought ye not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons [וּלְבָנָיו] by a covenant of salt?” (2 Chron. 13:5); “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.” (2 Sam. 7:12-16); “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.” (Ezekiel 37:24-25); “Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.” (1 Chron. 22:9-10). 

What is important here is that it is the seed of David which is given the promise of everlasting endurance on the throne of David, and we see nothing here that restricts it to Solomon only. And this is the manner of its presentation by the psalmist: “Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.” (Psalm 89:35-36). In the text cited from 1 Chronicles 22, it is the throne of Solomon and royalty which shall be perpetual and fulfilled in the Messiah, and there is no reason why this cannot come through Nathan, a true and direct son of David. Furthermore, if the Jews wish to be consistent with their argument concerning the curse of Jechoniah (which is fully answered below), then they must also concede that Solomon’s physical line came to an end at some respect with respect to ruling over Judah, especially those rabbis like Tovia Singer who would appear to make this curse absolute in its nature and duration. 

Q: Why is Jechoniah reckoned in the genealogy of Christ (Matt. 1:11), as the father of Salathiel, when a curse is placed upon him such that none of his descendents would ever sit on the throne of David (including Zerubbabel, who was not a king, but a governor)? How then can Christ be the son of David, and therefore the true and promised Messiah? The words are: “Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” (Jer. 22:30). 

A: We may first state that it is certain from 1 Chron. 3:17 that Jechoniah did indeed father Salathiel and Assir. Hence it is mentioned in Jer. 22:28 that he already had a number of children. This goes towards proving our second point that the curse was only temporary. [1]. Some have surmised that there were two separate people with the name Jechoniah mentioned in verses 11 and 12. This seems to be the opinion of Franciscus Gomarus in his Examen controversiarum de genealogia Christi (Groningae, 1631), much of which is already summarized and commented upon by Friedrich Spanheim in volume 1 of his Dubia Evangelica (Geneva, 1700), to whom we are greatly indebted. The one with the curse placed upon him was Jechoniah son of King Jehoiakim (1 Chron. 3:16; Jer. 22:24), who was also cursed in the same way (Jer. 36:30)--and yet did have a successor as the king of Judah, David’s house. However, in Matt. 1:11, he is listed simply as the son of Josiah, and would thus be identified either with Johanan (the firstborn of Josiah) or with Jehoiakim himself, whose son’s name was Jechoniah—the one spoken of in Jeremiah 22:30, as already stated. We may solve difficulties at once here, for some also object on the basis of there being only one person with the name Jechoniah, it would seem strange for Matthew to omit a few generations, and call him the son of Josiah rather than Jehoiakim. This is why we say there are two different people in verses 11 and 12 with the same name. And this was a common thing for the men of Israel to have two names, especially in royalty. For example, King Uzziah was also called by the name of Azariah (2 Kings 14:21). King Jehoiakim himself had Eliakim for his birth name before it was changed by Pharoah Neco (2 Chron. 36:4). Zedekiah’s name was originally Mattaniah (2 Kings 24:17), and so also for King Jehoahaz (Shallum). Similarly, Jechoniah was also called Jehoiachin. Spanheim also rightly observes that it is in this manner that Matthew’s genealogy remains consistent with the 3 groups of 14 generations; Jechoniah the father (Jehoiakim) is thus distinguished from his son of the same name (Jehoiachin). Finally, the Septuagint applies Ιωακιμ or  Ἰωακεὶμ both to Jehoiakim  (2 Kings 24:6, 8, 12, 15) as well as Jechoniah his son (2 Kings 25:27; Jer. 52:31). 

However, let us concede that there was only one in the line of Judah named Jechoniah, yet the next point will only make our case stronger—and that on the grounds of the Jews’ own authoritative writings and traditions. 

[2]. Concerning the curse of Jechoniah, Jeremiah 22:30 does not say that the curse would be upon him עד עוֹלָם “forever”, but בְּיָמָיו, “in his days.” And this is why none of his seven sons (1 Chron. 3:17-18) ever reigned in Judah. Similarly, the word עוֹד (“again, yet, still, any longer”) does not necessarily mean “forever” in the absolute sense. Therefore, we may conclude from hence that it is possible that the curse on Jechoniah was only of a temporary duration. And the Jews themselves confess this in their writings, that God revoked Jechoniah’s curse upon his repentance in Babylon. Maimonides says “And, again it is said of Jeconiah: "Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, (Jer. 22.30) though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon My right hand yet would I pluck thee thence" (Ibid. – 24); but when he repented, being in exile, it is said of his son Zerubbabel: "In that day, saith the lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, My servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet" (Haggai, 2.23).” (Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Teshuva, 7:6). Again, from the Talmud: “R. Johanan said: Exile atones for everything, for it is written, Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. Whereas after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of Jechoniah, — the same is Assir — Shealtiel his son etc….Alternatively, ‘Shealtiel’ is interpreted as meaning that God requested dissolution of His oath, as it were, and allowed Jeconiah to father a child. In the continuation of that passage in Chronicles, where the verse refers to the grandson of Jeconiah, Zerubbabel, the Gemara interprets that his name teaches that he was sown, i.e., conceived, in Babylonia.” (Sanhedrin 37b-38a); “R. Joshua ben Levi, however, argued as follows: Repentance sets aside the entire decree, and prayer half the decree. You find that it was so with Jeconiah, king of Judah.” (Pesiqta Rabbati, ch. 47). See also Badmidbar Rabbah 20:20. Tovia Singer insists that Zerubbabel was not a king, but a governor—but it seems that he is odds with his own masters and scholars. Most interestingly, some of them even confess that the Messiah will bear descent from Jechoniah. Such are the words of the Malbim (1809-1879): חי אני נאום ה' באר שזה היה מפני שנגזר עליו גזר דין בשבועה כי אם יהיה כניהו (מפני שהוא בן יהויקים שלכן נגזרה עליו הגזרה ולכן הגלהו נבוכדנצר בעון אביו) חותם על יד ימיני, ר"ל כי בנבואת חגי (ב' כ"ג) אמר ביום ההוא אקחך זרובבל ושמתיך כחותם, שהמלך המשיח עתיד להיות כחותם על ימין ה', כמו שעל החותם יפתח שם האדון ויודיע מי הוא, כן ע"י מעשה המשיח יפתח שם ה' וידעו נפלאותיו בעולמו, עז"א הגם שלעתיד יהיה כניהו חותם על יד ימיני, כי מזרעו יצא המשיח, בכל זה עתה משם אתקנך אנתק החותם לעת עתה מן הימין, וגם רמז במלת אתקנך ענין תיקון, שהתיקון שיהיה כחותם יבא משם מגלות בבל, שם תצרף בכור הברזל והיסורים עד יתוקן שיצמח צמח מזרעו, להיות כחותם תכנית על ימין; “‘As I live,’ says the Lord, [this decree was] because a sentence of judgment had been decreed upon him with an oath: Though Coniah (for he was the son of Jehoiakim, and therefore this decree was decreed upon him, and Nebuchadnezzar exiled him on account of his father’s sin) were a signet upon My right hand… That is to say: in the prophecy of Haggai it is said, ‘On that day I will take you, Zerubbabel…and I will make you like a signet.’ [Hag. 2:23] The King Messiah is destined to be like a signet upon the right hand of the Lord—just as by means of a signet is the name of the master impressed and made known who he is, so through the work of the Messiah the name of the Lord will be opened and His wonders made known in His world. Therefore it says [here] that even though in the future Coniah will be as a signet upon My right hand, for from his seed the Messiah will come forth, nevertheless for now, from there I will tear you off—I will remove the signet for the present from the right hand.”

And again, Rashi says upon Jer. 22:24: “I will remove you. Cf. (supra 12:3) “Draw them out (התִקֵם) like sheep to the slaughter” (Jos. 8:6) “Until we have drawn (התִקֵינוּ) them.” And the ‘nun’ is superfluous. And, according to the Midrash Aggadah: In the place to which he was removed (נִתַּק), there he was rectified (נִתְקַן), for he repented in Babylon, and the Holy One, blessed be He, applied for absolution of the oath He had sworn, ‘Inscribe this man childless.’ and Zerubbabel was born to him in Babylon, and it was said to him through the prophet (Haggai 2:23), ‘On that day… I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you as a signet,’ directed toward what He said to his father, “Though… be a signet on My right arm,… I will remove him.’” That the curse was indeed removed from Jechoniah is seen clearly from the signet ring given to Zerubbabel (Hag. 2:23), one of the very things taken away from his grandfather (Jer. 22:24) in the curse.

[3]. As for when Matthew states that Jechoniah and his brothers were begotten around the time of the deportation to Babylon, what has been said above suffices to resolve this difficulty, which is that there are two with the same name—a common occurrence. This also answers as to why Jechoniah is said to be deported “with his brothers” to Babylon, since ἀδελφὸς can signify amongst the Jews merely one of close relation or kin, as Zedekiah is called the brother of Jechoniah (2 Chron. 36:10), though he really his uncle. Similarly, Abraham calls his nephew Lot his אָחִיו (Gen. 14:14). Furthermore, the phrase in question is ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος, rendered by the KJV as “about the time” rather than “at the time”, and this is not without good reason, since ἐπὶ in the Scripture often may encompass a larger space of time than critics will admit. So it is used in Luke 3:2; 4:27; Acts 11:28, so that it refers more broadly to the time of the decline of the Jewish nation and provocations which led to their exile. Gomarus also makes the erudite consideration that ἐπὶ may be rendered here as “toward” or “up to” as a Hebraism, so that the meaning is “Josiah begot his sons toward the exile.” A similar occurrence may be seen in the use of the Hebrew preposition בְּ; Gen. 2:2; Ex. 12:15. This creates a nice antithesis that Gomarus establishes between ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας in verse 11 and μετὰ τὴν μετοικεσίαν in verse 12, and so ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας corresponds to verse 17: ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας, just as τὸ μετὰ τὴν μετοικεσίαν corresponds to ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας in verse 17.

Q: Was Shealtiel the son of Jechoniah (Matt. 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27)?

A: As will be made more clear in the next question concerning the father of Zerubbabel, there were two distinct men with the name Shealtiel. Neri was from the line of Nathan in Luke, while Shealtiel is from the line of Solomon in Matthew. That there is no coalescence between Matthew and Luke’s lines in the persons of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel is evident with the diversity of fathers preceding both in the text of the genealogies themselves. 

Q: Was Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah (1 Chron. 3:19) or Shealtiel (Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:27)? According to 1 Chron. 3:19, the sons of Zerubbabel were Meshullam and Hananiah. But in Matt. 1:13 and Luke 3:27 we read of an “Abiud” and “Rhesa”.

A: That Zerubbabel was most truly and properly the son of Salathiel is seen from Haggai 2:2 and Ezra 3:2, where he is distinguished as such—which agrees with Matthew’s use of ἐγέννησε. It is also the case that we have a difference here between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. The LXX of 1 Chron. 3:19 agrees with the evangelists’ listing of Salathiel, yet the Masoretic Text places Pedaiah as the progenitor of Zerubbabel. However, it is important to note that Salathiel and Pedaiah were brothers (1 Chron. 3:17-18), thus making a levirate marriage very likely. This is made even more certain by the fact that no sons are listed for Salathiel in that genealogy. Thus, Zerubbabel is the natural son of Pedaiah (for there is no reason to suppose that he would be a son in a different sense than in those other men also mentioned amongst Pedaiah’s posterity) and the legal son of Salathiel. (2) There is also the opinion of some would make the Zerubbabel and Salathiel to be 2 different persons with the same name. And there are indeed some strong reasons for this opinion. First, it has occurred in the Bible for there to be two people within the same generation or lifetime bearing the same name, such as Joash, king of Judah and another Joash who was the king of Israel. And this would explain why different fathers are mentioned (Neri and Jechoniah), and also different sons (Abiud and Rhesa). Second, the Zerubbabel mentioned in Matthew seems to have been born some time before the Babylonian captivity, while the one named in Luke appears to have been born after. Third, if these were the same persons mentioned in both genealogies, it is very strange that there would be no names in common between them at all for many generations. Fourth, in Matthew there are 9 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, while there are 17 generations between “Zerubbabel” and Mary in Luke 3. If there was a convergence of the two pedigrees here, some reason must be offered as to why they departed from one another again. Fifth, The renowned 19th-century biblical commentators Franz Delitzsch and C.F. Keil offer the following explanation with respect to the father of Salathiel: “The discrepancy in regard to the enumeration of Shealtiel among the sons of Jeconiah, a descendant of Solomon, and the statement that he was descended from Neri, a descendant of Nathan, Solomon’s brother, is removed by the supposition that Jeconiah, besides the Zedekiah mentioned in v. 16, who died childless, had another son, viz., Assir, who left only a daughter, who then, according to the law as to heiresses (Num. 27:8; 36:8f.), married a man belonging to a family of her paternal tribe, viz., Neri, of the family of David, in the line of Nathan, and that from this marriage sprang Shealtiel.” (Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002], 3:423)