Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD.

Further Festive Spirit:

co-regencies, onomastic patterns, and excerpts from Rabbinic literature.

Q: Ever wondered how to view Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies?

Me too.

What follows are some suggestions.

In the event of confusion, please refer to the diagram below:

Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels contain quite different genealogies.

Differences between genealogies aren’t always a problem.

People can be referred to by different names in different circles/sources.

And, if genealogies are incomplete (as Matthew’s and Luke’s are), then they can differ because they represent different generations.

That said, the differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies are substantial.

Matthew connects Jesus back to David by means of Solomon,

while Luke does so by means of David’s son Nathan (1 Chr. 3.5).

In addition, Matthew connects Joseph back to Zerubbabel by means of {Jacob, Matthan, Eleazar,...},

while Luke does so by means of {Heli, Matthat, Levi,...}.

We can therefore schematise the two genealogies’ relationship to one another as follows:

Here, five basic stages can be identified:

(1). broad agreement from Abraham to David,

(2). divergence over the era of the Kings (with Matthew’s line headed up by Solomon and Luke’s by Nathan),

(3). reunison in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel,

(4). divergence over the post-exilic period (with Matthew’s line headed up by Abiud and Luke’s by Rhesa), and

(5). finally, reunison in Joseph and Jesus.

Fine.

So, how are we meant to make sense of all these things?

Well, sometimes in life, you have to make a problem harder before you can make it easier,

which seems to be the case here.

Matthew’s mention of ‘Josiah’—whom Matthew qualifies as ‘the father of Jechoniah and his brothers’ (Matt. 1.11)—refers to a particularly knotty period of history, both in historical and genealogical terms.

To whet our appetites, let’s see what we can say about it on the basis of the relevant OT records.

#HereGoes

Note: In the OT, Jehoiachin is referred to as both ‘Jehoiachin’ (יהויכין), ‘Jeconiah’ (יכניה), and ‘Coniah’ (כניהו), all of which are basically rearrangements of the same two nominal elements (viz. the name יה = ‘Yah’ and כון = ‘to establish’).

——————

Judah’s last days are described in 2 Kgs. 23–24 and 2 Chr. 35–36.

On the basis of these texts, we can compile the family tree set out below:

The bracketed numbers indicate the kings’ order of ascendancy.

At first, Josiah was succeeded by his son Jehoahaz (2 Chr. 36.1);

then Jehoahaz was replaced by his brother Eliakim (36.4), who was named ‘Jehoiakim’ on his accession to the throne;

then Eliakim was replaced by his son Jehoiachin (36.8);

and, finally, Jehoiachin was carried away by Nebuchadnezzar and replaced by his uncle Mattaniah, who was named ‘Zedekiah’ on his accession to the throne (2 Kgs. 24.17).

All well and good.

But the genealogy set out in 1 Chr. 3 seems to tell a different story.

Taken at face value, it reflects the family tree shown below,

...which raises at least two important questions.

First, who’s Johanan?

That much at least doesn’t seem too hard to figure out.

Since Chronicles refers to Eliakim and Mattaniah by their ‘throne names’ (Jehoiakim and Zedekiah), the name ‘Johanan’ seems likely to be a throne name too.

And, since 1 Chr. 3.15 refers to Johanan as Josiah’s *firstborn* (3.15),

...we’d expect Johanan to be identical to whoever acceded to the throne first out of Josiah’s sons (which is what Jehoahaz did).

So, we can safely identify Johanan with Jehoahaz, as shown below:

But what about Shallum?

Well, the name ‘Shallum’ isn’t mentioned in the narratives of 2 Kgs. 24–25 or 2 Chr. 36.

It *is*, however, mentioned by Jeremiah,

who refers to Shallum as ‘a son of Josiah’ and as a man who ‘reigned in Josiah’s place’ (Jer. 22.11).

Shallum must, therefore, feature *somewhere* in Kings and Chronicles (since they are unlikely to have skipped over an entire reign without comment).

So, who exactly is he?

It’s not immediately obvious.

Let’s therefore make things harder;

specifically, let’s consider a few more questions/issues which are raised by the interaction of Kings, Chronicles, and the Biblical text as a whole:

🔹 Why does Kings have Jehoiachin begin to reign at the age of 18 when Chronicles has him reign at the age of 8 (cp. 2 Kgs. 24.8 w. 2 Chr. 36.9)?

🔹 Why does 2 Chr. 36.10 refer to Mattaniah as Jehoiachin’s ‘brother’ when 2 Kgs. 24 refers to him as Jehoiachin’s ‘uncle’?

🔹 Why does Matthew mention Jehoiachin’s *brothers* (plural) when 1 Chr. 3.16 credits Jehoiachin with at most one brother?

🔹 And how could Jehoiachin have acceded to the throne in the first place when Jeremiah had told Jehoiachin’s father (namely Jehoiakim) he’d be left without a son to succeed him (Jer. 36.30)?

At first blush, these seem a formidable set of questions.

But, remarkably, they can all be plausibly answered/resolved by the postulation of a single hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS: Shallum is Jehoiachin’s throne name. At the age of 8, Shallum-aka-Jehoiachin was instated as Israel’s co-regent (alongside Jehoahaz-aka-Johanan and his brothers),

and, at the same time, Shallum-aka-Jehoiachin was promoted to the rank of Josiah’s ‘son’ (possibly in order to facilitate his instatement as a co-regent).

Hence, like Joseph’s sons (Ephraim and Manasseh), who became brothers and co-heirs alongside the rest of Jacob’s sons,

...Jehoiachin became a brother and co-heir alongside Josiah’s sons.

That hypothesis is then able to explain:

🔹 why 2 Chr. 36 has Jehoiachin accede to the throne at the age of 8 rather than 18,

🔹 why 2 Chr. 36 refers to Mattaniah not as Jehoiachin’s ‘uncle’ (per 2 Kgs. 24), but as his *brother*.

🔹 why Matthew is able to refer to Josiah as the father of Jehoiachin and his *brothers* (plural).

🔹 and why Jehoiachin was able to reign in Judah at all. Jehoiachin was removed from Jehoiakim’s accursed line and grafted directly into *Josiah’s*.

Hence, true to Jeremiah’s word (לא יהיה לו יושב על כסא דוד), Jehoiakim’s line came to an end. The Messiah would not arise from Jehoiakim’s line (per the diagram below),

...but from Josiah and Jehoiachin’s:

As such, Jehoiachin’s judgment was rich with irony.

The man who excised large sections of text from God’s word (Jer. 36.23) was himself excised from the Messianic line/genealogy. God bypassed him.

——————

Note: The occasion of Shallum’s promotion is not clear to me, but the name ‘Shallum’ can plausibly be rendered as ‘He has been compensated’ (cp. שלם in Exod. 22.4–6, JAram. תשלומא = ‘compensation’, etc.).

Jehoiachin may, therefore, have been promoted (and assigned the name ‘Shallum’) due to the premature death of Josiah’s fourth son.

——————

So far so good then.

But we still have a number of other issues to deal with, the most immediate of which is the issue of *Jehoiachin’s* curse.

Jeremiah didn’t just curse Jehoiakim; he also cursed Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin.

Jehoiachin would be ‘childless’ (ערירי). None of his seed would rule (משל) in Judah or occupy the throne of David (Jer. 22.30).

As before, Jeremiah’s prophecy raises a number of awkward questions:

🔹 How can 1 Chr. 3.16–17 credit Jehoiachin with children (e.g., Zedekiah, Shealtiel, etc.) when Jeremiah’s curse is supposed to have rendered him childless?

🔹 If 1 Chr. 3.17’s Shealtiel is the father of ‘Zerubbabel the governor’ (Hag. 1.14)—which doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume since Jehoiachin’s son is the only Shealtiel we’re told about in Scripture—, then on what basis was Zerubbabel permitted to rule over Judah (Hag. 1.14)?

And why do Rabbinic texts (such as Midrash Tanchuma, Toldot 20) expect the *Messiah* to descend from Zerubbabel?

And, more importantly, how can Luke have Jesus inherit ‘the throne of David’ (Luke 1.32) when Matthew lists Jesus as a descendant of Jehoiachin?

🔹 Also worthy of note is the structure of 1 Chr. 3.16–18. Why does 3.16–18 divide Jehoiachin’s genealogy into two blocks, viz. a pre-exilic (3.16) and a post-exilic block (3.17–18)?

And why does it single out the status of Shealtiel, who alone is referred to as Jehoiachin’s ‘son’ in 3.17–18 (in a manner unparalleled elsewhere in ch. 3)?

——————

By way of response to these questions, the first point we need to note is what the Biblical and extra-Biblical record implies about Jehoiachin’s period in exile.

Despite a wayward start, Jehoiachin appears to have sought (and found) God’s mercy later in life.

As Nebuchadnezzar closed in on Jerusalem, Jehoiachin gave himself up (2 Kgs. 24.12), which seems a positive sign, since it is what Jeremiah repeatedly advised Zedekiah to do (though to no avail: cp. Jer. 38 w. 2 Chr. 36.11–12).

Moreover, while Jehoiachin was in exile, Nebuchadnezzar’s successor is said to have ‘lifted up his head’ (cf. 2 Kgs. 25.27)—an image/phrase typically associated with forgiveness and restoration (cp. Gen. 40.13 w. Psa. 3.3).

As a result, a number of Rabbinic texts and commentaries say God pardoned Jehoiachin while he was in exile (e.g., Pesikta D’Rav Kahanna 24, Radak on Jer. 22.30).

And, importantly, b. Sanhedrin 38a associates Jehoiachin’s pardon with the birth of *Shealtiel* (which it confirms on the basis of wordplay, where the root שאל is connected with ‘supplication/absolution’, while אל is connected with ‘God’ and אלה = ‘curse’).

Equally important to note is some of the imagery associated with Shealtiel in the book of Haggai.

Acc. to Jeremiah, the fault of Jehoiakim (Jehoiachin’s father) was twofold. First, he ignored God’s word (22.21).

And, second, his son (Jehoiachin) was not what he should have been: Jehoiachin should have been ‘a signet ring’ on God’s right hand (22.24), yet he instead became a ‘broken and dishonourable vessel’ (22.28).

Unlike his father, however, Jehoiachin *listened* to God’s word,

and, in response, Haggai chose to refer to his (great-grand)son Zerubbabel in distcintly Jeremianic terms, i.e., as a ‘signet ring’ on God’s hand (Hag. 2.23).

What, then, are we supposed to make of all these observations?

Remarkably, they are all consistent with a relatively simple and, given our discussion of Jehoiachin’s promotion, non-contrived hypothesis, which is able to answer the various questions outlined above.

HYPOTHESIS #2: While in exile, God pardoned Jehoiachin and allowed him to adopt Shealtiel (one of his kinsmen), who thereby became grafted into God’s line of promise (possibly along with others).

True to Jeremiah’s word, then, Jehoachin’s ‘seed’ (cp. זרע in 22.30) did not inherit David’s throne, nor did Jehoachin’s line continue.

And yet, by means of Shealtiel’s adoption, God was able to raise up the Messiah from Judah’s royal line.

That, I submit, is why 1 Chr. 3.17–18 is able to credit Jehoiachin with children (and why it particularly singles out the sonship of Shealtiel).

That is why 1 Chr. 3.16–18 divides Jehoiachin’s descendants into those who were born prior to the exile under God’s judgment (3.16) and, per the focus of Matt. 1.11–12, those who were ‘acquired’ by Jehoiachin while he was in prison (viz. Shealtiel and his kinsmen: 3.17ff.).

And that is why b. Sanhedrin 38a associates Shealtiel with the removal of God’s curse (and associates the line of Zerubbabel with the Messiah).

As such, Matthew’s genealogy exhibits a neat symmetry.

At both ends of Matt. 1.1–11, which the Tyndale House GNT helpfully paragraphs as a single unit,

we have:

🔹 a journey to/from Babylon,

🔹 a mention of ‘a leader and his brothers’—a phrase only found in vv. 2 and 11,

🔹 and a reference to a ‘childless’ man, whose lack of descendants *looks* as if it will signal the end of God’s promise yet is overcome by God’s gracious intervention. (Abraham and Jehoiachin are the only two characters to be described as ערירי = ‘childless’ in Scripture.)

Of course, if our hypothesis is correct—i.e., if Shealtiel was indeed adopted into Jehoiachin’s line—, then two distinct genealogies could theoretically be attributed to Shealtiel (a biological one and a legal/adopted one),

which is exactly what we have in Matthew and Luke:

Matthew provides us with Shealtiel’s legal/adopted genealogy, which leads up to David by way of Judah’s kings,

while Luke provides us with Shealtiel’s *biological* genealogy.

Consequently, Matthew’s genealogy is the shorter of the two.

Matthew wants to draw our attention to Shealtiel’s connection with Judah’s royal line—a line which is well documented elsewhere and needn’t be reproduced in full in Matt. 1—,

while Luke wants to document a lesser known family tree, i.e., a more or less continuous chain of father and son relationships.

(Acc. to Luke, Shealtiel is the 21st generation from David, which seems about right since Shealtiel and David are separated by c. 450 years.)

Of course, the situation described above may sound overly convoluted/complex for some people’s tastes,

but, before we leap to such conclusions, we should consider the historical context of Matthew and Luke’s genealogies.

Life in ancient Israel was a messy business.

Men were required to perpetuate their name/lineage by whatever means they could.

Sheshan, for instance, didn’t have any sons, so he gave his daughter to his servant (Jarha),

who was hence enabled to perpetuate Sheshan’s name/line (1 Chr. 2.34–35).

And Abraham intended to pursue a similar course of action with his servant Eliezer (cp. Gen. 15.2–3).

Mortality rates were high in ancient Israel.

As a result, names/lineages frequently became endangered, which is why the duty of ‘yibbum’ (Levirate marriage) was enshrined in Mosaic law.

Consequently, we shouldn’t be surprised to find messy genealogies in Scripture,

which is precisely what we do find in Jesus’ genealogy between David and Zerubbabel.

And, as we’ll now discover, Jesus’ genealogy is equally messy between Zerubbabel and Joseph.

Just as Shealtiel is connected back to David by means of two distinct genealogies, so Joseph is connected back to Zerubbabel by means of two distinct genealogies. (As before, Luke’s is the longer of the two.)

Why?

Briefly put, I don’t know.

But then there’s little reason why I should.

Scripture provides us with a significant amount of information about Jehoiachin and Shealtiel’s lives,

which allows us to suggest why Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies differ from one another (between David and Shealtiel).

But, in the case of Joseph, we lack the necessary historical information to make similar suggestions.

Why Matthew and Luke differ therefore remains unknown (for now).

But the Gospels can, perhaps, be shown to contain echoes of an unusual event in Joseph’s past—one which may have been accompanied by a change in Joseph’s ancestry.

In Luke, Joseph doesn’t seem to be very well connected with the house of David.

He doesn’t have a place of residence in David’s hometown (Bethlehem), which puts a certain amount of distance between him and the rest of David’s line.

And, when people refer to him as ‘Joseph’s son’ (4.22), it seems to function as a question mark against him rather than an honorific title, which is odd.

Wasn’t Joseph known to be a descendant of David?

Had his past been forgotten about for some reason?

Also worthy of note are the particular names recorded in Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies.

It appears to have been a common practice in Jesus’ day for parents to reuse/reinvent the names of their ancestors.

Zechariah’s relatives were, therefore, shocked when Zechariah chose a name for his child (‘John’) which was unknown among his ancestors (Luke 1.59).

The reuse/reinvention of ancestral names is also attested in Palmyra.

Consider, for instance, the Yedibel family’s genealogy:

A more densely clustered pattern is reflected in the A‘akai family:

These patterns are significant, since, as @DrPJWilliams has noted, they are reflected in *Jesus’* genealogy.

Consider the names recorded by Matthew (in the final leg of his genealogy).

Note: My transcription of Greek names into Hebrew follows Delitzsch’s NT.

As can be seen, the element הוד occurs in both the names אביהוד and אליהוד (which are separated by 5 generations),

and the root עזר occurs in both עזור and אלעזר (which are separated by 4 generations).

The same pattern is apparent in Luke’s genealogy, where it is more noticeable since our sample size is larger:

Note in particular the last three names listed by Luke: Joseph (יוסף), Heli (עלי), and Mattat (מתת).

Two of these names are a very good fit with Luke’s genealogy.

The name יוסף is attested in generations 1, 6, & 15.

And the element מתת is attested in generations 3, 8, & 14.

The names of Jesus’ brothers (viz. שמעון ,יוסי ,יעקב, and יהודה) also fit in well.

The name יעקב is patriarchal, and hence resonates with יוסף and לוי and יהודה.

The name יוסי is a shortened form of יוסף.

The name שמעון is related to שמעי.

And the name יהודה is related to יודה (and is patriarchal to boot).

By contrast, the last three names in *Matthew’s* genealogy do not share any notable elements/features with the rest of Matthew’s names, nor do the names of Jesus’ brothers.

In other words, the names borne by Jesus’ immediate family seem slightly out of place in the context of Matthew’s genealogy.

I therefore take the names ‘Mattan’ and ‘Mattat’ to refer to one and the same person (both names derive from the root נתן and can be rendered as ‘gift’ or ‘present’),

which means we can schematise the relationship between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies in one of two ways.

Either we can assume the names ‘Heli’ and ‘Jacob’ refer to one and the same person:

Or we can assume the names ‘Heli’ and ‘Jacob’ represent different generations:

Either way, Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies are consistent with our proffered hypothesis, namely that an unusual event occurred in Joseph’s past which resulted in the adoption of Joseph’s grandfather into a new family tree.

If so, Luke’s genealogy would represent Joseph’s *biological* line (where Joseph and his family’s names are at home), while Matthew’s would represent Joseph’s adopted line,

which could (as before) explain why Luke’s genealogy is the longer of the two.

At any rate: Joseph does not seem to be widely recognised as a descendant of David in the Gospels’ narratives, and the patterns attested and Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies provide a possible explanation as to why.

FINAL REFLECTIONS:

Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies exhibit a superficial tension, but are underlain by plausible principles and patterns.

Furthermore, Matthew’s reference to ‘Jehoiachin and his brothers’ is not (as some commentators have claimed) the statement of a careless historian;

rather, it reflects an impressive comprehension of OT history, as does the separation of Jehoiachin’s career into pre and post exilic compartments:

True, Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies may not be able to answer all the questions we might like to ask of them,

but they are nonetheless plausible accounts of history.

They exhibit the same kind of complexity as many OT genealogies, and are characterised by the same kind of knottiness as one would *expect* from a genealogy which spans over 1,500 years.

Meanwhile, the intracacies of Matthew’s genealogy are highly relevant to the message of Matthew’s gospel.

Shealtiel is grafted into Jehoiachin’s line in order to redeem Jehoiachin from God’s curse;

Shealtiel’s son (Joseph) accepts Mary into his family line in order to shield her from shame and disgrace;

and Joseph’s son (Jesus) will invite the whole of Adam’s fallen race to be grafted into *his* family tree (cp. Matt. 12.46–50) and hence be translated from death to life.

THE END.

CREDITS: The thread above owes a huge amount to the research (and unfinished thesis) of the late Dr. Leslie McFall, who was always very generous with the time he devoted to my questions.

Please Re-Tweet if you’ve found it helpful.