Jews for Jesus

You are here: Answers Jesus the Messiah The Problem of the Curse on Jeconiah in Relation to the Genealogy of Jesus

The Problem of the Curse on Jeconiah in Relation to the Genealogy of Jesus

The problem can be laid out in this way:

According to the genealogy in Matthew 1:12, Jesus is a descendant of Jeconiah. But Jeconiah was cursed in Jeremiah 22:24 and 22:30:

"As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.

This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah."

Since no descendant of Jeconiah could ever sit on the throne, if Jesus is a descendant of this cursed king, he is disqualified from being the Messiah.

If true, then what is Jeconiah doing in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew's gospel? And how can Jesus qualify to be the Messiah? First of all, we have to wonder why Matthew would ever have included Jeconiah among the ancestors of Jesus if this so obviously disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah. In fact, the Scripture shows that the curse was only short-term, if not altogether reversed by God.

There are three parts to the curse on Jeconiah (who is also called Jehoiachin or Coniah):

  • that he would be childless (this is how the Hebrew text literally reads)
  • that he would not prosper in his lifetime
  • that none of his descendants would rule in Judah

The Scripture shows that in fact none of these took place.

  • Though the Hebrew literally reads, "Record this man childless," Jeconiah in fact had children.

    The descendants of Jehoiachin the captive: Shealtiel his son, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah
    -- 1 Chronicles 3:17-18

  • He did prosper in his day.

    In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honour higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon.
    -- 2 Kings 25:27-28

  • His grandson Zerubbabel prospered and ruled. In fact the same words God used in rejecting Jeconiah were deliberately used in establishing Zerubbabel.

    "As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.
    -- Jeremiah 22:24

    "'On that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,' declares the LORD, 'and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty."
    -- Haggai 2:23

Though Zerubbabel did not sit on the throne as king, the fact that Haggai 2:23 uses the same terminology as Jeremiah 22:24 shows that Haggai intended to indicate a reversal of the curse.

We have to conclude that in Jeremiah 22:30, "in his lifetime" qualifies the following phrases, and "for" explains that no descendant of his will prosper and rule during his lifetime.

We find rabbinic sources which also agree that God reversed the curse on Jeconiah, which they attribute to repentance on Jeconiah's part. We even find the idea that the Messiah will descend from Jeconiah--exactly the opposite of what some say is impossible! Some of these sources are as follows:

1. Sources stating that Jeconiah repented and so God reversed the curse.

Sanhedrin 37b-38a

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.

--Soncino Talmud edition, with selected footnotes

Pesikta de-Rab Kahana (5th c.)

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.

Leviticus Rabbah XIX:6 (5th-6th c.)

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

Pesikta Rabbati, Piska 47 (6th-7th c.)

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.

Numbers Rabbah XX:20 (date uncertain; 9th c.?) 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

Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg, on Jeremiah 22:30 (20th c.)

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.

Encyclopedia Judaica

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).

2. Sources stating that the Messiah will descend from Jeconiah.

Tanhuma Genesis, Toledot (8th-9th c.)

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.

Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg on Jeremiah 22:24 (20th c.)

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.

Jewish Encyclopedia

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.

The above article is one solution to the problem of the curse on Jeconiah. For an alternate solution, see "The Genealogy of the Messiah" by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

Share this post:

Submit to FacebookSubmit to TwitterShare on Google+

Add comment

  • If your comment does not pertain to this specific article/blog please click here to send us a message. Comments not related to this article will not be posted.
  • We reserve the right to delete vulgar, racist, or hateful content, as well as inappropriate and off-topic posts.
  • For extended discussions, use our forums.
  • Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

Security code


+2 # barbara slate 2014-07-21 14:41
Stop arguing, He is the Son of God. Somethings you just know its true and you take it on Faith. I know Jesus is the Son of God and is coming back soon. I prasie the holy name of Jesus.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-1 # Pamela Therrien 2014-05-15 17:34
Jeconiah's seed was Joesph the royal line is proven clearly through Mary or Mirium in both Roman and Hebrew records, Mary was of "low estate" not by birth but by marriage to the cursed line which is why Joesph's son Jacob or "James" half brother of Jesus made a vow of celibacy. Jesus was adopted by law by His Uncle (Mary's twin brother) Joesph of Arimathea who was younger born second.The adoption was to ensure and what all feared The legal right and only legal right to the throne of Judeah. That was not the throne Jesus intended to rule .
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # stephanie joy 2014-05-09 01:20
While it may be true that the curse of Jeconiah was reversed it matters little because a careful examination of the lineage shows that Yahushua did not descend from the cursed Jeconiah at all. This is a great video carefully spelling out how there are two different Jeconiah's.. it's a real blessing only using scripture as evidence!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich 2014-04-10 21:00
It doesn't matter one bit if Mary's genealogy is presented in Luke. Tribal lineage always passes through the male's side of the family. In addition, the messiah comes through Solomon (Matthew), not Nathan(Luke). So Luke's genealogy is completely useless if trying to establish messianic bloodline. What is truly amazing is that even in Luke, it specifically says it is Jesus' genealogy through Joseph. It doesn't even make the claim it is being traced through Mary. "When Yehoshua was about thirty years of age and as all sons are, the hope of his father Joseph, who was the son of Heli etc..."

You can use all the mental gymnastics you wish to try to prove your point and to attempt to get around the problems both genealogies present for the messianic issue the fact still remains, the only genealogy that matters in terms of kingship is Matthew's.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Shoshanah 2014-06-13 18:37
You are incorrect. In this particular case, Mary was chosen by Adonai to be the mother of the Messiah. Yeshua did not need an earthly father in order to be born of the Seed of David, because he was born of Mary who was of the Seed of David.
Joseph was also from the Seed of David but since God is the Father, it makes no difference.
It states in Matthew 1:17: And Jacob begat Joseph the HUSBAND of Mary of whom was born Yeshua who is called Christ,(Mashiach).
Is this case it is clearly stated that through the Mother Mary, Mashiach is born.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Benjamin Luschen 2014-02-04 12:35
The curse is that no one of his descendants will sit on the throne of David. This has actually happened in history, so I cannot see that the curse is lifted.
The generation of Jesus in Mat is the kingly line through Salomon till Joseph whose father was Jacob.
They had the right to sit on the throne of David.
The problem that Jesus would inherit the throne of David, because Joseph did not beget Jesus, is solved, because Joseph received Jesus in his marriage with Mary as his firstborn son, that gives Jesus the legal right to sit on the throne of David.
An argument about adoption and if Jesus can sit there if the Jews gives Him the right is worthless, because God has placed Him there (PS 2:6). He is the King of Israel!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # castcreator 2014-03-11 12:30
Jesus is Not Messiah no matter which way you slice it. Yosef's lineage doesn't matter since he is not Jesus's father. Miriam's lineage doesn't work because which tribe YOU are from is from the fathers lineage: Numbers 1:2. And if that isn't enough one lineage does not have king Solomon in it and the other has Jeconiah who's lineage was cursed. These are scriptural proofs.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich 2014-04-10 21:28
Once a person argues "adoption", it disqualifies Jesus. You don't even need to go any further in the discussion. For example, if someone adopts their cousin and then dies later, if that cousin is the closest relative they will adopt, but because they are the person's cousin!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Rich 2014-01-10 07:42
It's very interesting that get upset when the Talmud places Jesus in a bad light. However, when they need to support their beliefs in Jesus, they have no problems using the Talmud in their favor as is shown in this article. You cannot have it both ways.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich Robinson 2014-01-10 16:49
Actually only one quote in the article is from the Talmud, but that aside, the quotes were not to support belief in Jesus but to show what rabbinic tradition said on the subject. The New Testament has many things in common with rabbinic tradition, obviously though belief in Jesus isn't one of those.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich 2014-04-10 21:02
Once is enough. You cannot disparage the Talmud and then even once, use it as support. That would by hypocritical.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # John 2013-07-26 03:31
1) Why is it a man named “Zerubbabel” in Zechariah 4:9-10 who holds a measuring line for the temple yet it is a man named “John” in Revelation 11:1-2 who holds a measuring line for the temple? 2) Why is it a man named “Zerubbabel” in Haggai 2:20-23 who is given authority before kings yet it is a man named “John” in Revelation 10:11 who is given authority before kings?
3) Why is it that a man named “Zerubbabel” is the only name mentioned in Zechariah 4 where the two olive trees are spoken of but yet it is a man named “John” who is the only name mentioned in Revelation 11 where the two olive trees (two witnesses) are spoken of? 4) Why is “Joshua” the high priest crowned before “Zerubbabel” who is to become God’s signet “IN THAT DAY”? 5) Why did the angel Gabriel give the name of "Jesus" to Mary's child when Isaiah gave His name as "Immanuel", and why did Gabriel give the name "John" to Elizabeth's child? A child born in end-time Babylon named John fulfills Zerubbabel prophecy!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # John 2013-07-30 02:03
Continued... Names have meaning throughout Scriptures. Immanuel means "God is with us". Just as Immanuel has a significant meaning, so does Zerubbabel which means "the one sown of Babylon" or "seed of Babylon" referring to a child conceived and born in Babylon. Since Joshua and Zerubbabel did not fulfill all that was prophesied of them during their lifetime, this means that it was a symbolic prophecy with two (branches) to come in the future from Haggai's and Zechariah's time to fulfill the prophecies. Who fulfilled the prophecy of Joshua? Joshua was introduced as a son of a high priest but then later as a high priest himself, He was clothed with filthy garments but then clothed with rich robes. He was told that he will judge the LORD's house and take charge of His courts if he walked in His ways and followed His command. Then the LORD told Joshua that He would bring forth a Branch and remove the iniquity of that land in one day. Finally, Joshua is crowned and shown another branch.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-1 # VL 2013-06-08 16:36
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Dale London 2014-04-09 01:00
I beg to point out that the traditions of Glastonbury are NOT scripture but folklore.

The Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned in all four Gospels but only the disciple of Jesus who provided his tomb, not as his kin. Rather, he was a highly placed member of the Sanhedrin who had access to Pilate. If he HAD been kin to Jesus, that would have been pointed out quite clearly.

The Joseph in Luke's genealogy is, in fact, the same Joseph as mentioned in Matthew, save that he has been grafted into Heli's line through the exception God gave the daughters of Zelophehad (Number 26:33-27-7) through Moses.

While Joseph, by his own right was cursed, his heirs (including Jesus according to law) were eligible to sit on David's throne, free from the curse on Jeconiah by virtue of descent from Nathan through Mary.

Funny how God always makes a way, huh?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich 2014-04-10 21:05
The Messiah comes through Solomon, not Nathan. Also, tribal lineage passes through the father, not the mother. The New Testament itself proves in the gospel genealogies that Jesus cannot be the messiah.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # Charles Slakan 2013-05-30 08:01
It's only a problem if you dont know conception was by tbe Holy Spirit, Jesus is King by the Father
And his Kingship and High Priest he was born into was by virtue of Mary who had a high priest, John the Babtists father as a relative as well as a line of males that went back to David.
It was Jesus stepfather Joseph who drew his line from King David through Jeconiah whom God cursed.
But Joseph was not related to Jesus at all.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich 2014-04-10 21:06
Priests come from the tribe of Levi, not Judah. Also, Melchizedek isn't a name, it's a title. It comes from two Hebrew words Melech (king) and Tzedek (righteous). Its a title that means "righteous king". There were many righteous kinds of Israel.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Bob 2013-05-11 17:41
I am wondering if Miriam's lineage through David has any role in inheritance of the Davidic throne. The Quran states that Miriam is of Aaron's lineage. All I need is the areas of study to research as I have most of the resources at my dispoal. shalom alekha
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+4 # Sandy 2012-12-23 04:53
The genealogy of Jesus the Messiah is that of Miryam (Mary) NOT of Joseph, who's lineage is found in Matthew. Joseph was Jesus' step-father not his biological father, for that was God Himself, but it is included in the history of Jesus for legal inheritance reasons in Judaic law. Miryam's lineage is found in Luke and shows that she is of the Royal House of David, but not related to Jeconiah, thus giving Jesus a rightful place on the throne of Israel.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-3 # Martyman39 2013-02-26 23:03
The point you are missing here is that it does not matter what Mary's lineage was. In Jewish tradition, family lineage is always traced through the father not the mother, and since as the Christians claim, Jesus was the "son of God" who obviously was not a descendant of King David, that rules him out as the messiah right then and there.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Jesse 2013-05-14 04:40
Mary's father had no sons, so the laws of Numbers 27:8 apply here.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich 2014-04-10 21:21
This is separate from tribal lineage. Inheritance can happy to anyone. You could end-up having your 20th cousin inheriting something. Does that mean they are the from the same tribe? No way. They are two separate things. Don't confuse the two.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich 2014-04-10 21:08
Sany, you're so wrong you must be making a joke. Tribal lineage, kingship always passes through the male's side of the family.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Dale 2014-05-16 00:38
Rich, you keep saying: [quote name="Tribal lineage, kingship always passes through the male's side of the family. But you are just plain wrong. Tribal lineage can and does pass through the female line if a man has no sons but does have daughters. Read Numbers 36 - which goes into great detail on this very issue. The case of Zelophehad's daughters is completely relevant in this case.
I admire your sincerity and tenacity in this but the fact of the matter is that you are on the wrong end of the stick here.
This is not new thinking, by the way - nearly all mainstream Bible scholars hold that the genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph and the one in Luke is that of Mary. The simple fact is that to hold another view is to run counter to the consensus.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-1 # David 2012-12-17 17:43
Exactly. Well said. Done!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-1 # VL 2012-12-16 15:31
The genealogy in Luke is that of Joseph of Aramethea, son of Heli he adopted Yahshua as his son thereby allowing Yahshua to be of the correct line of David to be King of Israel. Joseph of Aramethea was actually Mary's twin brother and Yahshua's uncle. This is also why Joseph of Aramethea was able to claim Yahshua's body after the crucifiction, he was the next of kin.
Luke 3:23-38
The genealogy in Mathew shows us that Yahshua could not be a descendent of Mary's husband, Joseph's, lineage, because he was a descendent of Jeconiah. The King lineage had to come from Mary's father Heli's family lineage, but the seat of king was through her brother Joseph of Aramethea, thus he had to adopt Yahshua as his son, as it is documented in Luke 3:23.
Interestingly, Mathew 1:16 never claims Yahshua is Joseph's son, Mathew 1:18-24 only states that Joseph named him Yahshua.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+10 # Ben 2012-12-11 21:29
How could a Jewish Messiah ever be BOTH physically descended from David AND legally entitled to David's throne after the curse on Jeconiah? Easy: Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Mary (lineage: Luke 3) is Jesus' physical connection to David through Nathan. Joseph (lineage: Matthew 1) is also a physical descendant of David - but NOT Jesus' physical dad. The curse on Jeconiah said neither he nor his physical descendants would receive it. Joseph inherited a throne he couldn't have taken -- but not a problem for Joseph's first son. Being ADOPTED was no barrier to receiving the throne. Bottom line: Jesus legally inherited His throne of David through the line of Solomon, and His physical inheritance as Son of David through Mary. He was the "seed of a woman." What seemed impossible following the curse -- for someone to be the Messiah both with throne and physically -- is solved in Jesus Christ. What appears an insolvable problem is more like a fun riddle: Jesus is the Messiah (the "Christ").
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich 2014-04-10 21:23
Kingship cannot be passed-on through adoption. Messiah has to be from the seed of David. You cannot pass bloodline through adoption. That goes against the laws of the Bible.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Mordechai 2012-11-26 16:38
Pedro, if Luke was indeed talking about Mary (and that's not so clear, as Luke 1:27 says Joseph was from David, not Mary), Jesus doesn't have a kingly connection to David since Mary was not from Solomon, but Nathan. The only other option Jesus has is through Joseph--his adopted father--and Joseph is from a cursed line. Even if adoption works to transfer lineage to an adopted child (which it doesn't), Jospeh would pass that curse on to Jesus.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+3 # Jesse 2013-05-14 04:34
Mordechai, Luke was tracing Mary's genealogy in keeping with Jewish customs. He traced Mary's line but used her husband's name. Joseph was not the son of Heli (Eli), Mary was the daughter of Heli, so Jesus was the son (grandson) of Heli. And the Bible doesn't teach that Messiah comes from Solomon, it always says David, so Jesus does have right to the throne through Mary through Nathan.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+3 # Pedro 2012-11-22 17:36
You all seem to be missing the point. Jesus was a descendant of David, both through Joseph and Mary. The bloodline of Joseph was cursed, yes, but not the bloodline of Mary. Because of the exception in the law, in Numbers 36 (stating that if a daughter with no brothers married a man from the same tribe, her fathers heritance could flow trough the husband and thus staying in the tribe), Jesus has a claim on the throne of David. Not trough Joseph, but through Mary.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Eric 2013-09-23 16:53

Interesting. I am not sure anything more then the physical possessions pass on?

Love & Blessings

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Mordechai 2012-10-19 15:39
Suddenly the Christian community, which normally dismisses the Talmud and other rabbinic writings as merely the works of man, has no qualms about using such writings to attempt to prove their position? And to even prove a position held by none of these sources? "In pretext or in truth," right?
It's worth noting that we don't see Jeconiah bringing sacrifices, yet the church seems to think he was forgiven anyway. How does that work according to church doctrine?
I'd say more, but Lee and Abraham above me have covered this well.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Rawiri 2012-11-18 20:41
Regardless of the "details" (remeber the old cliche "the devils in the detail")? How about a good look at the Revalation of Jesus Christ in the Book of Revalation. If you can see any of these signs today happening do you think it may be worth a deeper look? God Bless
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Dale London 2014-04-09 01:04
Not the Talmud, my friend. The Torah. The Talmud was written by men, the Torah was written by God through the hands of Moses.

Big difference!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # NathanH83 2012-09-27 14:11
The Zerubabbel in Haggai is the son of Shealtiel. But the Zerubabbel who was in the cursed lineage of Jeconiah was the son of Pedaiah. the Zerubabbel in Jesus' lineage had a father named Shealtiel and a son named Abiud. But the Zerubabbel in the cursed lineage of Jeconiah had a father named Pedaiah and none of his sons were named Abiud. Also, the Jeconiah in Jesus' lineage is listed as the son of Josiah and had plural brothers. The Jeconiah who was cursed was the grandson of Josiah and had only 1 brother.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich Robinson 2012-07-17 22:43
@Nick, I'll respond to you offline, comments boxes aren't great places for a back and forth :)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Nick Forrest 2012-07-17 20:18

Thanks for your comments. Who Jesus is must be central to the genealogy of Jesus as described by Luke. If Jesus is like a 'Cuckoo' planted in Mary's womb then there is no link. He is born of Mary but is not of Mary. Therefore, how can he act as the sacrifice as 'fully man' or Son of Man when there is no link to either man or the family of Israel?
This may seem a theological point but are we not concerned we have the correct understanding of who Jesus is and how He will redeem us. Or is He the son of Mary aswell - Her egg- and therefore the Luke line is established and the correct understanding of origional sin is not fully understood. Also I'm not sure what is understood by the statement there is no physical seed. Jesus became flesh I cannot see how he can be all flesh.

Please can you help my understanding.


Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Eric 2013-09-23 16:49
Nick & rick great thoughts and questions. A couple more.

I believe understanding the Trinity is one we will never completely understand.

Certainly when Yeshua was speaking to Nicodemus about being born again he was speaking of the need of a new spiritual birth. That is because we are all the sons & daughters of Adam & Eve. We are born into sin & iniquity. Yeshua being born of the Holy Spirit, even though in a human body was born sinless and did not need to be regenerated to be reconciled to God, or born again.

We don’t know if Yeshua was actually born totally of God, or if the seed of Mary was involved, for God can do anything. Since Yeshua was born without sin, and never sinned I think it is clear he was an extension of God in a human body, where the God part clearly ruled as he was tempted and never failed. As to whether or not, God implanted some kind of seed in Mary we also may never know.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Rich Robinson 2012-07-16 20:55
@Nick, Jesus was born without any human father - God has no physical seed. Would original sin pass to Jesus? Good theological question, we know that Jesus *didn't* sin, theologians argue over the rest. But Jesus is God Himself incarnated in a man, not a man adopted by God. Hope that helps.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-3 # Martyman39 2013-02-24 05:39
Just think about it for a moment. "Jesus is God Himself" Do you actually believe that God, the creator of the universe, once passed through the womb of a Jewish woman about 2000 years ago and the "virgin Mary" was impregnated by the "Holy Spirit" who was supposed to be God as well? So according to this God was his own father. Give me a break!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Rich Robinson 2013-02-26 21:41
So exactly what are you saying? Are you saying all Christians are idiots who believe nonsense? Obviously you don't have a clue what Christians really believe, so you need to take Religion 101 before you post comments.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # Zoe Warren 2013-02-26 22:03
Why wouldn't He do that? He is God. He had to clothe Himself in humanity to resolve the problem with humanity. Mary was a vehicle for God to enter into an egg.

Jesus made clear that God was His Father and that He lived as "I am" before Abraham was even born. He identified Himself as Jah. Yahweh, in Adonai, the King.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Dale London 2014-04-09 01:06
Quoting Martyman39:
Give me a break!

That is exactly why he did it, friend. We all need a break.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # Rich Robinson 2012-07-16 20:48
@Abraham - "Recording" childless could also mean that in fact he would have no children to record. That's the understanding of the commentators above. I'm unclear on your second point - "none will sit on the throne..." was part of the curse that was reversed, therefore Jesus *could* sit on the throne. Sacrifices were an integral part of the system of obtaining forgiveness - Jesus understood his own death as a "ransom for sin".
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Abraham Jos 2012-07-14 18:33
From the abundance of proof that you have quoted it is clear that the good Lord reversed the curse he had placed on Jehoiachin and allowed him to have children and prosper. But let me tell you that when the Lord says: "Record this man as if childless" it does not mean that he will not have children. Lord clearly says "record" him. That is count him as childless. Since his children will not sit on the throne of David, don't even mention about them.

This leads me to my 2nd point: the most important part of the curse in connection with the context of Jesus sitting on the throne of David is - "none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah." Since this did not happen, Jesus is disqualified from claiming access to David's throne. When Jehovah can forgive without blood sacrifice, then why Jesus?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Nick Forrest 2012-07-13 13:16
Please can someone answer this question.

Is Jesus the seed of God and the egg of Mary or was the complete Jesus placed into Mary's womb? If the former then because Mary, along with the rest of mankind, is fallen with Origional Sin this would pass to Jesus and so He cannot be without sin aswell. However, if he is not of Mary then his only link to Abraham and mankind is purely adoption by Joseph and Mary. Is this the link between Man and God-purely adoption? What am I missing?

What wonderful witness Jews for Jesus is.

Bless you all

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+5 # Zoe Warren 2012-08-18 01:40
Hey Nick, I may not be qualified to answer this, but here is what the Lord has shared with me. The curse of the sin nature is passed from the father and not the mother. Jesus was Fathered by God, therefore the sin nature/curse was not inherited. The sins of the fathers...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+8 # Lee Ahlstrom 2007-09-01 07:55
If we look at the actual curse, we see that Jeconiah is to be written 'as if' childless. I think that's an important point. The Scripture doesn't actually say he will be childless. So in effect, the curse _is_ fulfilled. None of his children sat on the throne of David. In fact, one could argue whether Zerubbable 'ruled' at all or was simply a leader of exiles who returned from Babylon--two very different things. In any case, he certainly did not rule as a king on David's throne. Finally, to say that Jeconiah really prospered when he had been in captivity for 37 years and finally got a break is a stretch. Just my humble opinion.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+10 # Jo 2006-09-06 16:29
As recorded in Luke's gospel- Mary was a descendant of the ruling house of Judah. Her blood line has no curse on it. Jesus was born into Marys' bloodline- still able to reign.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-6 # Martyman39 2013-02-24 05:29
So if, according to the Christians, Jesus was the "son of God" and in the Jewish faith, lineage is always traced to the father, did God come from the house of David? So that rules Jesus out as the messiah right from the word go. In addition, he did not fulfill any of the 5 prophecies that the messiah must fulfill according to Jewish tradition, so as far as I am concerned, he was about as much of a messiah as I am. In fact without the Gospels (which are full of contradictions) there is little evidence that he ever existed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Zoe Warren 2013-02-26 22:12
Son of God and Son of Man. At the same time. The ruler of all things (God) and additionally the King of the Jews (man).

As God His throne is His Father's throne. As man His throne is through His adopted Father's bloodline making Him eligible for the throne.

The King of the world took back the Kingship given to men in Israel, forever.

God injected Himself into the seed of the House of David to accomplish that, as well as several other matters.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Jesse 2013-05-14 04:04
John 15:25.

Did you heal a blind man, did you walk on water, did you raise people from the dead, and, most importantly, did you rise from the dead and appear to over 500 people?

Considered the unique case of Mary, Jesus' mother, how that her father had no sons, and so, in accordance to Numbers 27:8, Eli's inheritance passed to Mary (yes, she married into her father's tribe), and consequently to Jesus since Jesus had no biological father. That's how Jesus could have a paternal dynasty. Also, someone can be given the throne by prophetic sanction. Jesus had a proph. sanct., Luke 1:30-33.

If you don't believe Jesus even existed, I suggest you do some history research, and "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me" John 5:39.

Read Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus being the Son of God is a matter of position, not physical birth.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Eric 2013-09-23 16:40


Though your questions about the fulfilling of prophecy have probably been addressed in other forms in many different answers I will mention one, and move on to your question as to what evidence exists the Jesus ever did.

Some Christians believe that upon the messiah’s second coming that all prophecies will be fulfilled.

Relating to evidence outside of the Bible that Yeshua even existed, I would offer the following historical writings below which are from the website listed.

Josephus (37-101AD), Jewish Talmud (400-700AD), The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD), Thallus (52AD), Pliny the Younger (61-113AD) Suetonius (69-140AD), Tacitus (56-120AD), Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD), Phlegon (80-140AD), Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.), Celsus (175AD),

Love & Blessings

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Jeff 2006-06-27 04:08
Oraise the Lord JESUS is a Direct Decendant of David because HE will soon Reign the 7th day/millenium on His Throne & that's the main thing (Why God had to come to earth as a man.Halelul Jah!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+10 # Josh 2005-07-22 20:15
It is irrelevant whether or not Jeconiah was cursed or if it was indeed reversed. There is a much more fundamental issue here. Jeremiah declared that Jeconiah should be recorded as childless, in other words none of Jeconiah's children would sit on the throne of David. This creates a dilemna about the identity of the Messiah. The Messiah had to come from the ruling house of Judah but clearly could not be a descnedent of Jeconiah. Yeshua uniquely fulfills both of these seemingly contradictory requirements. Yeshua is not a blood descendent of Jeconiah because Joseph was not his biological father, however, Yeshua woul have inherited Joseph's titles. Therefore, Jeremiah's proclamation would not exclude Yeshua from claiming David's throne.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # mike 2005-07-04 23:00
The fact that Jeconiah was able to repent without offering a sacrifice seems the disprove to claim that we cannot repent of our sins withour blood sacrifices. He did. So can we!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # Christ_is_Lord 2013-12-08 20:16
Good information Pedro. It never ceases to amaze me how blind spiritual blindness is (the veil on the heart). We need to pray for our blind friends while still honoring them. I am a jew and joy in G-d my saviour. Truly G-d has made Jesus of Nazareth (who my fathers crucified) both Lord and Christ.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Jews for Jesus | 60 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 | Phone: 415-864-2600 | Contact Us
Copyright © 2014 Jews for Jesus. All Rights Reserved.

Social Networks

Jews for Jesus Social Networks
Jews for Jesus on Facebook Jews for Jesus on Facebook Jews for Jesus on Twitter Jews for Jesus on Youtube