ARC Wiki

The Genealogies do not match what is written in Chronicles. They are not accurate.

• 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 states Joram's son was Ahaziah, but Matthew 1:6 says his son is Ozias.
• Matthew omits Jehoash and Amaziah, shown in Chronicles (ibid).
• Matthew says Uzziah was Jotham's father. But 1 Chronicles says Azariah was Jotham's father.
• After Zerubabbel, Matthew and Chronicles diverge, showing a different line.
• 1 Chronicles 3:16-17

It is a well-known fact that under Jewish Law as decreed by God in Numbers 1:18 cf. Numbers 36:7 and many other places. This is not being picayune; the law clearly states (again, these are God's decrees not Rabbinic fences) that tribal inheritance will not pass between tribes. This means your tribe cannot change because as a landed Israelite you owned a plot of land in Israel. With this kind of connection to the land your tribe could never change. This was the purpose and meaning of the separation into Tribes, why it was Patrilineal.

Moreover this is admitted by many Christian Apologists – it is not an unknown problem. For example Josh McDowell acknowledges this issue (and quotes Jeremiah 22:30) on page 188 of “A Ready Defense”. Also, the Ryrie Study Bible (page 1315) also acknowledges the issue but claims the curse had no effect since this was “from Mary's genealogy” – a claim which makes no sense even if it were true (it's not; see 'conflicting genealogies' below).

Also note that even Martin Luther conceeds on this issue; in 1543 he writes, “it cannot be proved that Jesus is of the tribe of Judah, because the apostle Matthew traces the tribe of Judah to Joseph and not Mary; therefore he could not be the Messiah as proved by the tribe of Judah and David.' Martin Luther does note that Mary could be of the house of David; yet again this disqualifies the genealogy based on the adoption principle (and going through Nathan vs. Solomon; see below, 'cursed genealogies').

More information:

• Can you explain how Jesus can be the Messiah if he was not from Judah (given that Joseph was not his physical father)?
• Can Jesus Inherit Lineage From His Adoptive Father Joseph?
• To a Child of a Jewish Father

There appears to be a major problem with the accounts in Matthew and Luke. They don't match. It actually appears there are two different genealogies despite it being stated they are both through Joseph.

The two conflicting genealogies given for Jesus are those of Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

The claim is sometimes made that one genealogy is of Mary. However, in Matthew 1:16, Matthew's genealogy is stated to be through Joseph – and in Luke 3:23, Luke's genealogy is stated to be through Joseph. So the claim that one genealogy is Mary's seems to be an invention out of whole cloth.

It is also interesting to point out that even if the above two points could somehow be resolved, both genealogies would still be invalid – that is, they would actually show the exact opposite – that Jesus cannot be the Messiah!

In Matthew 1:12, the genealogy passes through Jeconiah. The issue here is that Jeconiah's descendants were cursed and his descendants can no longer hold the office of King:

• “After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,” –Matthew 1:12 (KJV)
• “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.” –Jeremiah 22:30 (KJV)

In Luke 3:31, we see the genealogy passed through Nathan. However, this again amounts to a disproof of Jesus' Messiahship, according to 1 Chronicles 22:9-10!

• ”“ –Luke 3:31 (KJV)
• ”…Solomon… 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 Chronicles 22:9-10

Christians will commonly respond that this could be taken only in the sense of Solomon. This is not logical in and of itself, however, the following verses make explicit the meaning in which the above should be taken, so I will include them here for your exhaustive reference:

• 2 Chronicles 7:17-18
• 17 And as for you, if you will walk before me as David your father walked, doing according to all that I have commanded you and keeping my statutes and my rules,
• 18 then I will establish your royal throne, as I covenanted with David your father, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man to rule Israel.’

• 1 Kings 9:4-5
• 4 And as for you, if you will walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my rules,
• 5 then I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’

The best christian response here will be to bring aggadic midrash to support the idea that in fact Jeconiah (for example) would descend the messiah. Examples;

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.(1) [He was called] Assir, because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, because God did not plant him in the way that others are planted. We know by tradition that a woman cannot conceive in a standing position. [yet she] did conceive standing. Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because God obtained [of the Heavenly court] absolution from His oath.(2)

(1) I Ch. III, 17. Notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven.

(2) Which He had made, to punish Jechoniah with childlessness.

1. -Soncino Talmud edition, with selected footnotes

All next sources are at best aggadic midrash.

I accepted the repentance of Jeconiah: shall I not accept your repentance? A cruel decree had been imposed upon Jeconiah: Scripture says, This man Coniah is a despised, shattered image ('sb) (Jer. 22:28), for Jeconiah, according to R. Abba bar Kahana, was like a man's skull ('sm) which once shattered is utterly useless, or according to R. Helbo, like a wrapper of reed matting that dates are packed in, which, once emptied, is utterly useless. And Scripture goes on to say of Jeconiah: He is a vessel that none reaches for with delight (ibid.), a vessel, said R. Hama bar R. Hanina, such as a urinal; or a vessel, said R. Samuel bar Nahman, such as is used for drawing off blood. [These comments on Jeconiah derive from] R. Meir's statement: The Holy One swore that He would raise up no king out of Jeconiah king of Judah. Thus Scripture: As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim . . . were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24), words by which God was saying, explained R. Hanina bar R. Isaac, “Beginning with thee, Jeconiah, I pluck out the kingship of the house of David.” It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew for “pluck thee” is not as one would expect 'tkk, but the fuller and less usual 'tknk, which may also be rendered “mend thee”–that is, mend thee by thy repentance. Thus in the very place, [the kingship], whence Jeconiah was plucked, amends would be made to him: [his line would be renewed].

R. Ze'era said: I heard the voice of R. Samuel bar Isaac expounding from the teacher's chair a specific point concerning Jeconiah, but I just cannot remember what it was. R. Aha Arika asked: Did it perhaps have some connection with this particular verse – Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, a man [who] will not prosper in his days (Jer. 22:30)? “Yes, that's it!” said R. Ze'era. Thereupon R. Aha Arika went on to give R. Samuel bar Isaac's interpretation of the verse: In his days Jeconiah, so long as he is childless, will not prosper, but when he has a son, then he will prosper by his son's prosperity.

R Aha bar Abun bar Benjamin, citing R. Abba bar R. Papi, said: Great is the power of repentance, which led God to set aside an oath even as it led Him to set aside a decree. Whence the proof that a man's repentance led Him to set aside the oath He made in the verse As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says [of one of Jeconiah's descendants] In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). And the proof that a man's repentance led God to set aside a decree He issued in the verse Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, etc. (Jer. 22:30)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says, The sons of Jeconiah – the same is Asir – Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron. 3:17). R. Tanhum bar Jeremiah said: Jeconiah was called Asir, “one imprisoned,” because he had been in prison ('asurim); and his sons called “Shealtiel” because he was like a sapling, newly set out (hustelah), through whom David's line would be continued.

R. Tanhuma said: Jeconiah was called Asir, “imprisoned,” because God imprisoned Himself by His oath in regard to him; and Jeconiah's son was called Shealtiel, “God consulted,” because God consulted the heavenly court, and they released Him from His oath.

–Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975), pp. 376-77. Bracketed portions are Braude and Kapstein's explanations.

The Holy One, blessed be He, then said: 'In Jerusalem you did not observe the precept relating to issues, but now you are fulfilling it,' as it is said, As for thee also, because of the blood of thy covenant I send forth thy prisoners out of the pit (Zech. IX, 11) [which means], You have remembered the blood at Sinai, and for this do 'I send forth thy prisoners'. R. Shabbethai said: He [Jeconiah] did not move thence before the Holy One, blessed be He, pardoned him all his sins. Referring to this occasion Scripture has said: Thou art all fair, my love, and there is no blemish in thee (S.S. IV, 7). A Heavenly Voice went forth and said to them: 'Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings' (Jer. III, 22).

–Soncino Midrash Rabbah vol. 4, p. 249

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. For the Holy One, blessed be He, swore in His anger, As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim kind of Judah were the signet on a hand, yet by My right – note, as R. Meir said, that it was by His right hand that God swore – I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24). And what was decreed against Jeconiah? That he die childless. As is said Write ye this man childless (Jer. 22:30). But as soon as he avowed penitence, the Holy One, blessed be He, set aside the decree, as is shown by Scripture's reference to The sons of Jeconiah – the same is Assir – Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron. 3:17). And Scripture says further: In that day . . . will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). Behold, then how penitence can set aside the entire decree!

–Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), vol. 2, p. 797.

…no sooner had they repented, than the danger was averted, And the Lord repented of the evil (ib. XXXII, 14). And so in many places. For example, He said about Jekoniah: For no man of his seed shall prosper (Jer. XXII, 30) and it says, I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations . . . 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 (Hag. II, 22 f.). Thus was annulled that which He had said to his forefather, viz. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were the signet upon My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence (Jer. XXII, 24).

–Soncino Midrash Rabbah vol 6, pp. 812-13

In this, too, no man of his seed shall prosper, namely that no one will occupy the throne of David nor rule in Judah. Although we find that Zerubbabel, his great grandson, did rule over Judah upon the return of the exiles, the Rabbis (Pesikta d'Rav Kahana p. 163a) state that this was because Jehoiachin repented while in prison. They state further: Repentance is great, for it nullifies a person's sentence, as it is stated: 'Inscribe this man childless.' But since he repented, his sentence was revoked and turned to the good, and he said to him, “I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you a signet” (Haggai 2:23). They state further: Said Rabbi Johanan: Exile expiates all sins, as it is said: “Inscribe this man childless,” and after he was exiled, it is written: '(1 Chron. 3:17) And the sons of Jeconiah, Assir, Shealtiel his son'–[Redak].

–A. J. Rosenberg, Jeremiah: A New English Translation (New York: Judaica Press, 1985), vol. 1 p. 185. “Redak” is an acronym for Rabbi David Kimchi (13th c.), whose opinion Rosenberg cites.

Even the decree that none of his descendants would ascend the throne (Jer. 22:30) was repealed when Zerubbabel was appointed leader of the returned exiles (cf. Sanh. 37b-38a).

–“Jehoiachin” (9:1319).

Scripture alludes here to the verse Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain (Zech. 4:7). This verse refers to the Messiah, the descendant of David. . . .From whom will the Messiah descend? From Zerubbabel.

–Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, translated by Samuel A. Berman (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996), p. 182.

Malbim calls to our attention that in the prophecy of Haggai (2:23), God says, “On that day I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you like a signet,” for the King Messiah will be like a signet ring on God's right hand, so to speak. Just as the name of the owner of the ring is engraved on his signet ring, through which he makes himself known, so will God's name be known in the world through the King Messiah, through whom His miracles will be known. He says here that, though, in the future, Coniah will be the signet on My right hand, for the Messiah will spring from his seed, now I will remove him from there.

–Ibid., p. 183. Malbim is an acronym for Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michale, a 19th c. rabbi and commentator. 22:24.

Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).

–Louis Ginzberg, “Jehoiachin,” vol. 7 p. 84.

First it must be understood that if a Christian wishes to admit oral law, even midrash into the discussion, as authoritative, his argument will instantly collapse. The purpose of presenting this argument is one solely of frustration and desperation. So while it is in fact possible to go through all of these sources, it will be a waste of time. It is always easier to point out that all of these are midrashic or hearsay sources and do not carry ecumenical authority of any kind in Judaism.

However, the strongest response is to point out that in classical evangelical theology, as presented by people such as Josh McDowell in “A Ready Defense” (pg. 188), or in the Ryrie study bible (pg 1315), that this point – the descendency through Jeconiah – is used as a justification for the requirement of the virgin birth (!!) because at least protestant Christians agree (for the purposes of justifying the necessity of a virgin bith) that if there was no Virgin birth, Jesus couldn't have been made King in the line of David (from Joseph's line) because of Jeconiah. This is a completely valid response along the same lines and authority as the previous sources.

In fact, Martin Luther himself wrote in “on the genealogy of Jesus (and the Jews)” in 1543, “it cannot be proved that Jesus is of the tribe of Judah, because the apostle Matthew traces the tribe of Judah to Joseph and not to Mary… therefore he could not be of the tribe of Judah as proved by the tribe of Judah and David.” In defense of his own theology, Luther points out Luke's genealogy is of Mary. This is, however, incorrect. It's also of Joseph. Secondly, even if it was of Mary we already know that it would be invalid because tribal affiliation is solely passed on through the father (Numbers 1:18, et al.)

Now upon returning to the sources given we shall see how the Christian position instantly collapses. The story is that Jeconiah was forgiven by God without the need for blood atonement because he was careful to keep the law while he was in exile. A christian should be reminded that if his only way out is to admit that one does not need blood atonement for the direct forgiveness of sins by God (see Isaiah 59:1) this is in fact not an argument which actually supports his case re: Jesus in the first place.

So, if the Christian sticks to his guns, he loses because “a sinner's repentance (in exile) atones for all sins” – A direct violation of Romans 3 (and more). The second problem of course is that by admitting the authority of the talmud (at least on account of the quoting of Sanhedrin, and not the midrashic literature) – there become countless arguments one may use against Christianity. Again, not a door the Christian should enjoy opening.

The Genealogies are not accurate (conflicting), don't even apply (adoption) and even if they did apply they only serve to show Jesus could not have been the Messiah.