This article is from
Journal of Creation 38(2):121–127, August 2024

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Tracing the sceptre—reconciling opposing views on the genealogies of Jesus

by Robert W. Carter

Background

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are highly divergent. The parallel information in 1 Chronicles 3 introduces even more difficulties. Skeptics use this to deny the inspiration of Scripture.¹ Scholars have struggled with this for two millennia. Two main views, each with several possible permutations, have been at the forefront of the debate. The ‘levirate marriage hypothesis’ is probably the most common view espoused throughout church history and can be traced at least as far back as Julius Africanus (c. AD 160–240). Eusebius (c. AD 260–339) also supported this view.² A second view, much more popular today, is that Matthew traces Joseph’s lineage and Luke traces that of Mary. This can be found in Hilary of Poitiers (c. AD 310–367), who claims this view was common at the time,² and John of Damascus (AD 676–749). Being that notable people such as J. Gresham Machen and John Piper held, or hold, to a different interpretation, as explained below, it is surprising that many Christians are unaware of other possible solutions to the apparent dilemma.

Almost every combination of ideas has, at least at one point, been suggested by some scholar of repute. This includes the idea that Matthew and Luke are both tracing the line of Joseph, that both are tracing the line of Mary, and that Matthew is following Mary’s lineage while Luke is following Joseph’s.³ Consulting historic Bible commentaries, the notes included in various study Bibles, and papers published in various scholarly journals, including sources from all the major publishing houses, will turn up a bewildering array of viewpoints.⁴ Among current scholars, the consensus seems to be that the two lists are irreconcilable.² Some famous preachers do not even attempt to fix the problem, leaving it up to the scholars.⁵ Many teach that Matthew’s goal was to emphasize the Davidic kingship. They discuss the theological and symbolic elements in Matthew 1, but often from a literary perspective and not so much from a historical perspective. So they leave the plain reading conundrum unanswered. Many lay people simply throw up their hands, finding a solution neither in the Bible nor coming from their church leadership.

Scholarship is nearly unanimous in believing that Matthew 1 traces the genealogy of Joseph, but they are split on what this means. Some believe that Jeconiah (discussed below) repented and was restored,⁶ thus paving the way for him to be in the line of Christ. Others believe that his line was cut off, so Jesus needed another line to David (e.g., through Mary). Among the minority of current scholars who believe that Matthew is tracing the right to the throne of Judah, few have attempted a historical reconstruction of the events that led to the sceptre being passed from the lineage of Solomon to the lineage of his brother Nathan.

For this last position to work, we need a way to incorporate the prophetic, genealogical, and historical information scattered across nearly a dozen biblical books. We need a simple solution that is both faithful to the text and which makes as few assumptions as possible. It also needs to follow Jewish law. This can be done, and one possible solution will be presented below. One can make a strong case that Matthew is indeed tracing the sceptre while Luke is tracing the genealogy, and both converge in Joseph.

No solution answers every possible objection. Since this is an issue of biblical perspicuity, and since this impinges on the deity of Christ, via the accuracy of the Gospels, and since our understanding of biblical genealogies informs us about other important questions like the age of the earth,⁷ we need to carefully parse the relevant data and be circumspect about our conclusions.⁸

Descendants of King David

We know that the ‘savior’ promised in the Old Testament would be a human male (Genesis 3:15), and a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 22:18), then Judah (Genesis 49:10), then David (Jeremiah 23:5). Yet, the Messiah did not appear prior to the close of the Old Testament canon, and David’s descendants had been decimated and scattered via the Babylonian conquest, the return to Judea, and devastating warfare during the Maccabean, Idumean, and early Roman periods.

While the kings of Judah might be expected to have had many children,⁹ most of the names of the royal children have been lost to time.¹⁰ The royal family was also constantly embroiled in turmoil and came close to extinction on more than one occasion.¹¹ Yet, descendants of the house of Solomon and his brother Nathan are known to have survived; Solomon’s line continues through all the kings of Judah, of course, and the line of Nathan is mentioned in Zechariah 12:12.

Since David was born over 1,000 years prior, he potentially had millions of descendants by the time of Christ’s birth. Yet, there is a difference between a generic descendant of David and a person who could claim to be the rightful king. After Solomon, who was not the oldest surviving son of David,¹² the Kingdom of Judah followed strict rules of primogeniture.¹³ Only the oldest surviving son of the king could claim the right (e.g., 2 Chronicles 21:3). When a claimant died with no sons of his own, the sceptre would have passed to another line. This is especially important when it comes to tracing the line of David through the Babylonian Captivity.

When the Babylonians destroyed Judah in 586 BC, they set up a crisis in the lineage of David. Three of the four sons of Josiah had sat on the throne, but only one grandson (Jeconiah) had any surviving sons (appendix 1). Yet, the prophecies against this wicked king were direct and severe. Thus, there remains an open question as to whether the Messiah could ever have come from him. The casual reader might insist that Jeconiah’s survival (and eventual procreation) does not remove God’s curse, citing Jeremiah 22:30. And yet, God did prophesy about forgiveness in this same context (e.g., Jeremiah 36:3). It is possible that God ‘repented’ of His curse on Jeconiah. Despite the uncategorical nature of the original pronouncement against him, such a reversal is not unwarranted in Scripture. Consider that God proclaimed that Ninevah would be overthrown (Jonah 3:4), yet their repentance made Him relent (Jonah 3:6–10). Ezekiel 18 also sets out a path of redemption. Even though God proclaims, “The soul who sins shall die” (v. 20), He also states that He has no “pleasure in the death of the wicked” and wants them to “turn from his way of life and live” (Ezekiel 18:21–23).

The Talmud teaches that Jeconiah repented and was restored,¹⁴ and Christians who believe Jeconiah is in the genealogy of Jesus only have to mention the fact that his descendants are in Matthew’s genealogy of the Christ. However, nothing is simple here.

New Testament genealogies

In the New Testament, we are treated to two disparate genealogies of Jesus (figure 1). These follow very different lines and contain a highly divergent number of generations. The Gospel of Matthew includes a list of 44 names in a line that connects Abraham to Jesus.

Illustration by Caleb Salisbury, CMI

Luke 3:23–38 includes more names (56 men from Abraham to Jesus) and goes all the way back to Adam. The list from Abraham to David is identical in both accounts, but Matthew has 30 generations from David to Jesus while Luke has 42. Worse, two of the names (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel) are identical in both lists. Thus, either two father/son pairs with identical names just happened to exist in two separate lines, or the two genealogies come together for unexplained reasons for those two generations, only to split again. But then one line had 11 generations while another had 20, in the same amount of time.

1 Chronicles creates more confusion. Chapter 3 contains a detailed list of the descendants of David. After Jeconiah, none of the names match either those of Matthew or Luke. The exception is that a Shealtiel and a Zerubbabel are listed, but as uncle/nephew. It is unlikely that all three sources have a different Shealtiel/Zerubbabel pair.¹⁵

Option 1—Luke follows Mary’s line; Matthew follows Joseph’s line

Matthew’s highly stylized list left out multiple generations to arrive at a mathematical formula (three sets of 14 names) that would be easy to memorize. He leaves out Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah (the kings that ruled between Jehoram and Uzziah) and Jehoiakim (father of Jeconiah). This raises the real possibility that he left additional names out later. Yet, other classic appeals to ‘missing generations’ (e.g., the lineage of Moses through the Egyptian Sojourn¹⁶ and the detailed chronogenealogies in Genesis 5 and 11¹⁷) come up short when carefully analyzed. Thus, we should not cavalierly insist that Matthew left out names between Jeconiah and Jesus, even though the shortness of the name list, when compared to that in Luke’s list, does suggest it.

Option 1 is supported by the fact that Matthew starts with the words, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυεὶδ υἱοῦ Ἁβραάμ). The word ‘genealogy’ (γενέσεως) deals with the origin, nature, or existence of something, depending on context. Yet, by starting with the word ‘book’ (βίβλος), Matthew seems to be laying out a detailed record of Jesus’ birth lineage. Even though Jesus was not the literal son of David nor David the literal son of Abraham, he felt free to use the term ‘son of’ in both cases. This might indicate that there will be missing generations in the subsequent list. Yet, it also means that the names are not always father/son pairs, which will become important later.

Fruchtenbaum believes that the intent of Matthew’s genealogy was to show that the Messiah could not be a son of Joseph. First, Matthew cites the names of four women, at least two of whom were gentiles and at least three of whom have sordid backgrounds (why did Matthew leave out Sarah, for example?). Matthew then traces the line through Jeconiah, through whom the Messiah could not come. The “seed of the woman” (Genesis 3:15) and “a virgin shall be with child” (Isaiah 7:14) feature heavily in his argument. There is no reference to the male line in either prophecy. He also notes the use of the definite article prior to every name in Luke’s list, except for Joseph. He says this would have been a clue to any reader (in the original language) that the genealogy was not that of Joseph. Instead, it was of his unnamed wife. Putting aside his virginal conception, Jesus could not be the son of Joseph, according to Fruchtenbaum, because then Jesus could not be the Messiah.¹⁸

If Luke is tracing the line of Mary, this would be a unique feature of the Bible. In no other place are the rights of inheritance traced through a woman.¹⁹ Either way, most scholars at least agree that Matthew is tracing Joseph’s lineage.

Option 2—Matthew and Luke both trace the line of Joseph

The other common view attempts to blend the genealogies together. Sanders outlined the possibility of the existence of multiple adoptive and levirate relationships among the men listed in Matthew’s genealogy, but she also left open the possibility of missing generations.²⁰ She notes that the Greek wording in both genealogical accounts strongly indicates that Joseph is the father of Jesus (see below). One solution to the dilemma is that under Jewish law, when a man died without a son, the man’s brother was expected to marry the widow and raise a son for his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–10). These are called ‘levirate marriages’ (from the Latin levir, ‘husband’s brother’).

As mentioned above, this thinking has a long tradition in Christian scholarship. In the Letter to Aristides, Africanus suggested that after Jesus’ grandfather Jacob was born, Jacob’s father (Matthan) died. The widow then married a man named Helsi and they had Heli. After marrying, Heli died. Being that Jacob was Heli’s half-brother, he had a levirate marriage to the widow and together they had Joseph. If you find this confusing, you are not alone. The point is that levirate marriages commingle family lines and provide a possible solution. It is also important to note that levirate marriages can occur at various levels of kinship (e.g., Ruth 4:1–12), not just between brothers.

What if Matthew wrote out a king list, not a genealogy?

One addition to this hypothesis that most have missed is the idea that Matthew’s list might be a king list, not a genealogy. This is found in the writings of Machen²¹ and John Piper,²² but neither of them flesh it out much.²³ Machen writes:

“The most probable answer is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David—the men who would have been legally the heir to the Davidic throne if that throne had been continued—while Luke gives the descendants of David in that particular line to which, finally, Joseph, the husband of Mary, belonged” (p. 64).

“But on the whole we are inclined to think that the true key to a solution of the problem (however the solution may run in detail) is to be found in the fact that Matthew, in an intentionally incomplete way, gives a list of incumbents (actual or potential) of the kingly Davidic throne, while Luke traces the descent of Joseph, back through Nathan to David” (p. 65).

There are significant differences between a genealogy and a king list. For example, if an outside observer did not know the detailed history of the British monarchy, they might be fooled into thinking these are parent/child relationships, yet fully half of them are not (appendix 2). What might that tell us about Matthew’s list?

If Matthew contains a list of eligible kings, it is not a list of actual kings, so there are no co-regencies, etc. Any time a man died without a male heir, the birthright would shift to another line. If that sonless man lived to a ripe old age, his brother, nephew, maybe even grandnephew, may have predeceased him. Thus, the sceptre would have passed to a much younger person and the name list would skip several generations. This alone might explain the shortness of Matthew’s list.²⁴

How can Matthew and Luke both trace Joseph’s line?

Following Sanders,¹³ and contrary to Fruchtenbaum, the Greek seems to indicate that both lines are tracing Joseph’s lineage. Matthew 1:15b–16 reads:

Ματθὰν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τόν Ἰακὼβ Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τόν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρία
(… Matthan begat Jacob, Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary …).

Luke 3:23–24a reads:

ὢν υἱος ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσἠφ τοῦ Ἡλὶ τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ
(… the son, as was supposed, Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi …).

How can both accounts trace the line of Joseph when they are so entirely dissimilar? Was Joseph’s father named Jacob or Heli? If Matthew’s list is not a genealogy, the mystery might be solvable.

Yet, much has been made of a single missing word in Luke 3:23 (e.g., “the son … Joseph, of Heli …”, instead of “the son … of Joseph, of Heli …”). Fruchtenbaum,¹⁸ Robertson,²⁵ and Sarfati²⁶ all assert that the omission would indicate to any Greek reader that Joseph was not to be included in the list. Hence, Heli would be Mary’s father instead of Joseph’s. The Talmud (Hagigah 2:2) also states that Heli was Mary’s father. On the other hand, Joseph starts off the list in Luke’s genealogy, and writing ‘of Joseph’ would have indicated that Jesus was Joseph’s son, which would be an error. Many have asserted that Mary’s reputed father, Heli, may have adopted Joseph if he had no sons of his own. Thus, Joseph can be the ‘son’ of Heli even if Mary is Heli’s daughter. This, though, does not address the repetition of Shealtiel/Zerubbabel in the three lists. Unless Mary is also a descendant of Zerubbabel, as some others claim. Yet that proposition does not explain how the names in ‘Mary’s’ genealogy are so different than those of ‘Joseph’ or how ‘Mary’s’ line could go back to Nathan.

Machen was a contemporary of Robertson and would have been aware of his views, especially since his quotes, above, were printed a full decade after the publication of Robertson’s A Harmony of the Gospels (1922). One wonders why Machen disagreed with the others. He was certainly competent in the original language (e.g., he wrote an influential NT Greek textbook²⁷ that was used in many seminaries for decades after he died).

Who was Zerubbabel?

In the first year of Cyrus the Great (ruled 559–530 BC), a group of 42,360 Jews returned to Judah (Ezra 2:1–2, 64; 3:8; 5:2). They were led by two men: Zerubbabel, who was appointed the provincial governor of Judah (Haggai 1:1, 14), and the priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Scholarly sources refer to Zerubbabel as the ‘Exilarch’ (e.g., the head of the exile). Two of his sons, Meshulam and Hananiah, held that title after him, and Hananiah’s descendants are detailed in 1 Chronicles (appendix 3). There is another important figure in the account, Sheshbazzar son of Jeconiah. He is referred to as ‘the prince of Judah’ (Ezra 1:8), and the ‘governor’ (Ezra 5:14). It can be assumed that the Shenazzar (son of Jeconiah) in 1 Chronicles is the Sheshbazzar (a prince and a governor of Judah) in Ezra. It was to him that the temple treasures were entrusted, although it was Zerubbabel who returned with them to Judah.

Contrast what God said about Jeconiah to what He said about Zerubbabel:

“… though Coniah … were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off …” (Jeremiah 22:24).

“On that day, declares the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the Lord, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares the Lord of hosts” (Haggai 2:23).

See also Zechariah 4:6–10.

Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel. Since Zerubbabel was a descendant of David, the remnant (Haggai 1:12) of the Jewish people knew who their leader was, even though the kingly line had nearly died out. Here is an open question: did God restore the line of Jeconiah, or was Zerubbabel from a different line (e.g., that of Nathan)? If the latter, the signet ring had been taken from Solomon’s line and transferred to the line of Nathan. If the former, God had retracted His curse.

Sixty or more years after the death of Zerubbabel, one of Nehemiah’s opponents claimed:

“It is reported among the nations, and Geshem also says it, that you and the Jews intend to rebel; that is why you are building the wall. And according to these reports you wish to become their king. And you have also set up prophets to proclaim concerning you in Jerusalem, ‘There is a king in Judah’” (Nehemiah 6:6b–7a).

This provides a hint that the Jews were tracking who held the right to the throne, even if they never intended to act on it. And it does not have to be true that this was common knowledge outside the citizens of the village of Bethlehem later on. Even today, there are multiple living people descended from royal families who are alive but will never be in positions of power. This includes individuals from countries like Albania, Burundi, China, Korea, Finland, France, Hawaii, and Mexico. Most people in the world are completely unaware of this, yet the (extended) families certainly have not forgotten.

To resolve the problem of multiple Shealtiel/Zerubbabel pairs, it is possible that men with the same name would appear in different family lines at about the same time.²⁸ We can see other common names in the biblical account throughout this period.²⁹ The problem is that the Shealtiel/Zerubbabel combo occurs in three different lines (1 Chronicles, Matthew, and Luke). It is entirely unlikely that the name combination happened independently so many times. Two pairs might be a fluke. Three pairs requires a better explanation.

A proposed solution

Marshall claimed, “It is only right therefore to admit that the problem caused by the existence of the two genealogies is insoluble with the evidence presently at our disposal.”³⁰ Was he correct? What if an answer to the dilemma existed? What we would need is a solution that is faithful to Scripture, that incorporates multiple minor details given to us in a dozen biblical books, and that properly handles prophecy, historical narrative, and straight-up genealogy. This solution needs to match Old Testament law and must have as few assumptions built into it as possible. There could be more than one possible solution, but consider figure 2.

© CMI

Assuming there are no missing generations, we might be dealing with different genealogical tables in 1 Chronicles 3 and Matthew 1. The reason the descendants of Jeconiah don’t match might be due to the simple fact that the Chronicler recorded only a subset of the genealogy and Matthew pulled from a different subset. In the world of genealogy, descendant trees are much more complex than ancestor trees. Even though the number of places in the family tree goes up by a factor of ‘2’ for each generation in an ancestor tree, the number of people in a descendant tree is indeterminant and multi-branched and there is no simple way to display multi-generational descendant trees (e.g., the information in Genesis 10). It might also be true that many of the men listed went by more than one name. Thus, there might be no way to combine the two lists, and perhaps we should not expect to be able to do so.

However, there is an elegant and simple solution to the dilemma that incorporates all the relevant information without any contradictions and without any appeals to special pleading. It does, though, involve two steps that are not mentioned in Scripture. Each is probable and each occurred many times in history, so it is not like we must chain together a series of improbable events.

If Jeconiah had several wives, which is not unexpected, and if he married a widow who already had a son, that son would have become the son of Jeconiah by adoption. We do not need to know how many wives or how many sons Jeconiah had or by whom. We only need to surmise that he had an older son named Pedaiah by one wife and a younger adopted son named Shealtiel by another wife. Pedaiah’s being older is an assumption, but it is not critical. It is assumed that it would be unlikely that a former king would marry a woman who already had a son before he had at least one son of his own. The next assumption is that Pedaiah married but died without having any sons. In that case, it was the duty of the stepbrother to marry Pedaiah’s widow so he could raise up a son in Pedaiah’s name. In fact, had he not done this, he would have been cursed according to the Law (Deuteronomy 25:7–10). The result of this levirate marriage was “Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel”. The third assumption is that Pedaiah died before his father.

This putatively solves the puzzle:

• 1 Chronicles 3 traces the levirate line:Jeconiah → Pedaiah → Zerubbabel
• Matthew 1 traces the sceptre:Jeconiah → Shealtiel → Zerubbabel
• Luke 3 traces the genealogy of Joseph:Neri → Shealtiel → Zerubbabel

All three genealogies are correct and true. There is no ambiguity and there are no contradictions in this solution.

Intermarriage among the descendants of David

Consider the final three generations in Matthew and Luke:

• Matthew: Matthan → Jacob → Joseph
• Luke: Matthat → Heli → Joseph

Are Matthan and Matthat the same person? The name similarity is striking. If so, Matthan had two sons, Jacob and Heli. If Jacob was older, and if he died without any sons, the kingship would have transferred to the closet relative. If Heli was already dead, the sceptre would have gone to Joseph (figure 3).³¹

© CMI

There are many possible ways for the sceptre to have passed from one line to another among the descendants of Zerubbabel. Levirate marriages and adoptions can keep a line going forward, as seen above. But lineage tracing can be used to restore a line that was lost. For example, if the Eleazar in Matthew’s list failed to have any sons, a search would have been made for the closest living male relative. Even if they had to go all the way back to the sons of Zerubbabel, this would not have been impossible. In fact, that would mirror the ‘Capetian Miracle’ that happened in 16^th-century France (appendix 2). If that closest relative was Matthan, Matthew would list him as rightful heir and the two New Testament genealogies would be united, briefly. They would have had to be re-united two generations later for Matthew to list Joseph as the rightful heir and for Luke to list him as the (supposed) father of Jesus. In fact, many such events could have happened in the generations between Abiud and Eleazar. All Matthew gave us was a list of the men who held the sceptre, not their genealogical connections.

Fruchtenbaum claimed:

“Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.”⁷

Yet, in the construct suggested above, Joseph is not Jeconiah’s descendant by blood. Given any number of possible scenarios, the sceptre could have passed from Solomon’s line to that of Nathan. Fruchtenbaum also points out that his solution (i.e., Luke traces Mary’s line) is only one of several possibilities, linking to an article that asserts that Jeconiah repented and was restored.³²

Is Matthew’s list really a king list?

Option 2 is a real possibility. We have a realistic explanation that incorporates all the facts and produces a system without any contradictions. This does not mean that it is true. However, it does mean that the differences between 1 Chronicles 3, Matthew 1, and Luke 3 do not contradict one another. It also opens up additional theological considerations. For example, did the people around Jesus know that he was the rightful king of Judah (appendix 4)?

Conclusion

If we have a workable solution, biblical skeptics will have to look elsewhere for reasons to reject the Bible. The thought that Matthew is tracing the kingly line does nothing but strengthen the perspicuity of Scripture. This is just one more example of the self-consistency of the text. If the Bible was not the Word of God, we would expect to find many errors and contradictions, and we would throw up our hands when approaching difficult challenges like this. If, on the other hand, the Bible is what it claims to be, we would expect to be able to work out solutions to vexing problems like an apparent genealogical discord. And we can.

Appendix 1: The end of the Kingdom of Judah

To understand the genealogy of Christ, we need to understand the history of the Kingdom of Judah. Anyone who has ever read though the books of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, or Jeremiah knows that the end of Judah is confusing. There were four kings, three of whom were sons of Josiah, two of whom were deported to a foreign country, two of whom had names changed by a foreign king, two of whom reigned for only three months, and two of whom reigned for 11 years.

© CMI

Here is a summary of the events:

• The last ‘good’ king of Judah, Josiah, died during a battle with Pharaoh Neco of Egypt. After this, Necho appointed his youngest son Shallum as king (2 Kings 23:29–30; 1 Chronicles 3:15). Shallum was also known as Jehoahaz. Three months later, Neco deposed Jehoahaz. He died in Egypt (2 Kings 23:31–34).
• Neco then placed Josiah’s son Eliakim on the throne, changing his name to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34). He ruled for 11 years. During his reign, the Battle of Carchemish (605 BC) was fought between Egypt and Babylon (Jeremiah 46:1–12). The Bible is unclear about how Jehoiakim died, although he died young (age 36, 2 Kings 23:36). He rebelled after three years of Babylonian subjugation (2 Kings 24:1), about the same time that Nebuchadnezzar lost a major battle in Egypt, and died eight years later, perhaps when the Babylonians returned to take control of the Judean hill country. In this series of kings, Jehoiakim is singled out as being the worst (compare 2 Kings 23:32,37 with 2 Kings 24:9,19). He may have “slept with his fathers” (2 Kings 24:6), but it was prophesied that his body would be “dragged out and dumped beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 22:19). 2 Chronicles 36:7 says, “Nebuchadnezzar bound him in chains to take him to Babylon,” but it is not stated that he was actually deported. Or, if he was, there was plenty of time for him to be sent back as a vassal king to Jerusalem. All we know is that he died around the same time the Babylonians were warring against Judah.
• Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin (aka Jeconiah, aka Coniah) became king upon the death of his father. He reigned for only three months before he was deported to Babylon, where he died (2 Kings 24:10–16).
• Josiah’s third son, Mattaniah, was the last ruler of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar changed his name to Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17). After eleven years, Zedekiah rebelled. The Babylonians returned to Judah, destroyed Jerusalem, killed his sons, blinded him, and took him captive to Babylon (2 Kings 25:1–7), where he died.
• Josiah had another son, Johanan, the eldest. He is mentioned only once, and then only by name (1 Chronicles 3:15).

There were multiple prophetic utterances against these final kings.

Regarding Shallum/Jehoahaz:

For thus says the Lord concerning Shallum the son of Josiah, king of Judah, who reigned instead of Josiah his father, and who went away from this place: “He shall return here no more, but in the place where they have carried him captive [e.g., Egypt], there shall he die, and he shall never see this land again.” (Jeremiah 22:11–12)

Regarding Jehoiakim:

“Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: ‘He shall have none to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat by day and the frost by night. And I will punish him and his offspring and his servants for their iniquity. I will bring upon them and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem and upon the people of Judah all the disaster that I have pronounced against them, but they would not hear.’” (Jeremiah 26:30–31; cf. Deuteronomy 28:26)

Regarding Jehoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah:

“As I live, declares the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off and give you into the hand of those who seek your life, into the hand of those of whom you are afraid, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of the Chaldeans. I will hurl you and the mother who bore you into another country, where you were not born, and there you shall die. But to the land to which they will long to return, there they shall not return.” (Jeremiah 22:24–27)

And:

“Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.” (Jeremiah 22:30)

Many have taken that to mean that the future Messiah could not come from Jeconiah. And yet, Jeconiah was partially restored by the son of Nebuchadnezzar:

And in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. And he spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put off his prison garments. And every day of his life he dined regularly at the king’s table, and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, according to his daily needs, as long as he lived. (Jeremiah 52:31–34)

Both Jeremiah and 2 Kings close with the restoration of the line of Judah (similar to the way 2 Chronicles closes with the restoration of the nation of Judah). Remarkably, records of the food allowance for Jeconiah and five of his sons have been found in Babylon.³³ This nicely parallels the list of seven sons in 1 Chronicles 3:17. “Count this man as childless,” yet he has many sons? Jeconiah was 18 when he became king, but he was almost immediately deported to Babylon and spent the next 37 years in prison (Jeremiah 52:31). Thus, it is unclear when any of his children were born, but it is likely that they were born when he was in his 50s. Also note that a ‘son’ does not have to be biological. He could easily have adopted an heir from another one of David’s lines.

Regarding Mattaniah/Zedekiah:

“But thus says the Lord: Like the bad figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten, so will I treat Zedekiah the king of Judah, his officials, the remnant of Jerusalem who remain in this land, and those who dwell in the land of Egypt. I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a reproach, a byword, a taunt, and a curse in all the places where I shall drive them. And I will send sword, famine, and pestilence upon them, until they shall be utterly destroyed from the land that I gave to them and their fathers.” (Jeremiah 24:8–10)

The lineage of the kings of Judah was going to end, but Jeremiah also prophesied about the “Righteous Branch” (e.g., Jesus) that will rise from David’s lineage (Jeremiah 23:5–6). He did so immediately after declaring Jeconiah childless. There were still a few people left from the royal family (Jeremiah 41:1, 41:10, 43:6; 2 Kings 24:12; Daniel 1:3), but most cannot be traced. It cannot be overemphasized how important the genealogies of Christ are in the New Testament. The Temple and its records have been destroyed. Never again will anyone be able to claim descent from David.

Appendix 2: Comparing the biblical record to those of other famous dynasties

The royal line of France was unbroken from Hugh Capet (b. 940 AD, also a descendant of Alfred the Great) to Louis XVII (b. 1785). This included 26 Y chromosome generations with an average generation time of 32.5 years. But there were several times when a lineage ended with a woman, or with a king who had no children. At one point, a 19-generation lineage ended with Margaret of Valois (b. 1553, daughter of Henry II and sister to three deceased French kings). Henry IV (of the house of Bourbon) married back into the royal line and continued the Y chromosome tradition, even though the Y chromosome connection was nine generations back. The “Capetian miracle” was that the descendants of Hugh Capet managed to hold onto power (and, unknowingly, a Y chromosome line) for so many years.

The Japanese have the longest continuous dynasty in the world. From the current Emperor, Naruhito, 73 Y chromosome generations can be traced back to about 600 BC. The lineage was not unbroken, but there was enough endogamy that the Y chromosome line remained intact. 73 generations (but well over 100 emperors) over 2,620 years equates to about 36 years per generation.

The honor of the world’s longest (reputed) unbroken genealogy belongs to the descendants of Confucius, who was, in turn, descended from King Tang (b. 1675 BC). Several of his disciples also have complete genealogies stretching to living people. I have personally met a man who claimed he descended from ‘Confucius’ least favorite disciple’. He claimed 67 generations, which I calculate at 37 years per generation.

Assuming Luke’s genealogy is accurate, with no missing generations, etc., there were 41 generations over approximately 1030 years, or 25.1 years per generation. Matthew’s genealogy only has 30 generations. There are several ways to reconcile this with the ‘king list’ hypothesis. First, this equates to only 34.3 years per generation. That is longer than the Lukan generation time, but comparable to that of other royal lineages. A complicating factor is that there are more rulers than generational steps in these lists. Thus, one might expect a list of eligible kings would exceed the list of Luke, instead of being as short as Matthew. Is it possible that cultural factors in the Judean line of kings caused a greater average generation time?

Appendix 3: An explanation of 1 Chronicles 3:10–24.

© CMI

The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles are difficult for many people to read through. The genealogical sections are especially troubling, and the genealogy of Zerubbabel’s lineage is more difficult than most. Above is a visual representation of the details. In each generation, one person (blue) is selected for the list in the next generation. There is no known reason why this list ends with the sons of Elioenai. It might simply be that one of his sons was among the chroniclers and he was simply writing down all the genealogical information he had on hand. Much of the material in these books seems cobbled together, as if a research team was trying to gather all the information they had and combine it in one place.

What makes this even more difficult is that the mathematical formula changes from one part of this passage to anohter. This section of 1 Chronicles starts out with a simple list of fathers and sons:

The son of Solomon was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son, Amon his son, Josiah his son. (vv. 10–14)

That follows the history given to us in the books of Kings and what we will read later in Chronicles. What follows, though, is hard to parse because the grammatical structure changes often.

The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. (v. 15)

This is a nicely enumerated list of sons in birth order. Note that nothing that follows v. 15 specifies a birth order.

The descendants of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son; (v. 16)

Zedekiah is not the son of Jeconiah. He is his brother. Jeconiah’s sons are listed in the next verse. Thus, the formula changed, and it will change several more times in this short passage.

and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah; (vv. 17–18)

Note that the phrase “his son” is used only once. Is this hinting at adoptive relationships or sons from multiple marriages? Why does it focus on Shealtiel? We cannot know.

and the sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel and Shimei; (v. 19a)

Here we learn that Zerubbabel had a brother. If, as suggested in the main article, Zerubbabel was the product of a levirate marriage, why would the father (Shealtiel) continue to have sons with the widow of Pedaiah?

and the sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith was their sister; and Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-hesed, five. (vv. 19b–20)

At this point, the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3 fails to match that in Matthew 1 or Luke 3. The son list does not include Abiud (Matthew) or Rhesa (Luke). One also wonders why only the last five are enumerated.

The sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, [sons of] Rephaiah, [sons of] Arnan, his [sons of] Obadiah, [sons of] Shecaniah.

Here, the word ‘son’ was replaced with ‘sons of’ to reflect differences in the major text families (e.g., the LXX, etc.). This is probably indicating that each of these men had sons of their own who are not listed. Any genealogist runs into the problem of exponential growth. An ancestor tree is simple, even though it grows quickly. A descendant tree, however, is extremely difficult to delineate.

The son[s] of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. And the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat, six. (v. 22)

Note that the ‘six’ must include Shemaiah. Thus, the ‘sons’ of Shecaniah also include his grandsons. This is a prime example of how the mathematical formula shifts from one verse to the next. The reader must pay careful attention.

The sons of Neariah: Elioenai, Hizkiah, and Azrikam, three. (v. 23)

Simple enough.

The list then ends with the seven sons of Elioenai:

The sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah, Eliashib, Pelaiah, Akkub, Johanan, Delaiah, and Anani, seven.

Appendix 4: Did Jesus’ contemporaries know of his claim to the throne of Judah?

Why did Pilate ask Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Why did he place that sign over Christ’s head? Consider that Joseph’s hometown, Bethlehem, was also King David’s hometown, and the returnees from Babylon “went each to his own town” (Ezra 2:1). During the census that happened in Jesus’ birth narrative (Luke 2:1–7), Joseph had to return to Bethlehem. According to the archaeology of the area, Bethlehem was a small village in New Testament times. A small town meant few people, so everyone there should have known the family history. Joseph’s status as a descendant of David would then have been known. The question now arises, “Was Joseph the descendant of David?” That is, was he the rightful heir to the throne?

If so, when Joseph adopted Jesus as his own, this meant that Jesus inherited the right to the throne of David. Adoption provided the adoptee with all the legal rights of a biological son. This also argues against the Catholic view that Jesus’ siblings must have come from an earlier marriage of Joseph,³⁴ because then one of those brothers would have been the heir to David.

Jesus’ younger brothers may have had some misgivings due to the rumors surrounding Jesus’ birth. Take King Edward IV of England (1442–1483) as an example. Many of his contemporaries, including his brothers, claimed he was illegitimate. Putting aside the truth or falsehood of those claims, imagine the implications similar rumors would have had on Jesus’ younger brothers. Did they really think he was crazy (Mark 3:21)? Why did it take them so long to come to the truth that He was the Messiah?

The Apostles would also have known about Jesus’ status. They lived in intimate contact with him, and several may have also been distant relations.³⁵ Thus, the information may have filtered down to the masses or risen to the notice of those in power. The massive following that developed around Jesus would have been a serious concern to the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Romans – now add to that the possibility that he was a claimant to the throne of Judah.