jeconiah cursed

by peacefulpete 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  In Matthews fictional geneaology of Jesus he includes Jeconiah (aka Jehoiachin, Coniah), why? 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 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."

  It seems clear that no descendant of Jeconiah could ever sit on the throne, so if Jesus is somehow (dispite curse to be childless) a descendant of this cursed king, he is disqualified.

  There are three parts to this curse,that he would be childless, that he would not prosper, and that he would have not decendants on the throne.

  Oddly enough other parts retain the tradition that none of these curses came true.

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

  "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 word used in rejecting Jeconiah were seemingly deliberately used in establishing Zerubbabel.(Hagg 2:23)

  This contradiction was recognized by readers 20 centuries ago. In fact in the Rabbinic writings of the first century the tradition was that God must have forgiven Jeconiah tho this is not mentioned in the OT. Apparently so well established was this explanation that Matthew thought nothing of including Jeconiah in his geneaology dispite the specific wording of Jeremiah 22. In fact it is suggested that his inclusion in the list was for this very reason. Matt was a big advocate of the ransom for forgiveness doctrine and may have seen an opportunity to toss in an example of forgiveness from the distant past.
• 

  Leolaia

  Welcome back, Pete.

  There are a few other interesting things about Matthew 1:11-12. The gospelist says that Jehoiachin and his brothers were the sons of Josiah, whereas 1 Chronicles 3:15-16 says that Jehoiachim was the son of Josiah, and Jehoiachim was the father of Jehoiachin/Jeconiah and Zedekiah. Both names are spelled the same in Greek (Ioakim, cf. 2 Kings 23:36; 24:8-16), and the names are confused in Ezra 1:41 (LXX). There is also confusion in the Hebrew; 2 Chronicles 36:10 mistakenly designates King Zedekiah as the brother of Jehoiachin rather than Jehoiachim (this is probably because both had brothers named Zedekiah). Matthew may also draw on Ezra 1:34 which erroneously names Josiah as the father of Jechoniah. In either case, Matthew's geneology deletes a generation -- which is necessitated anyway by his schema of three series of 14 generations.

  Regarding the curse in Jeremiah, it is interestingly mentioned in 11QTemple. The scroll mentions the unfaithfulness of the Davidic kings and implies that the line ended with the exile; the final king "shall never have a descendant sitting on the throne of his fathers. Indeed, I shall forever cut off his seed from ruling Israel" (59:13-15).
• 

  peacefulpete

  thanks for the interesting response Leolaia. I have so little time lately for research. My mind is out of focus.
• 

  Narkissos

  Nice to "see" you again Pete!

  The contradictory bits of NT apologetics on this subject are interesting indeed. While Matthew's and Luke's genealogies both try to relate Jesus to David following different lines (and Luke, by choosing the non-royal davidic descent, avoids the Jehoiachin dead end), others tried to explain away the obvious fact that Jesus was not David's descendent (Mark 12:35ff).

  About Matthew's genealogy, actually to fit the 14 x 3 pattern it omits 3 kings and counts Jechoniah twice (v. 11-12)!

  Another thing is that Jeremiah's curse was not taken seriously by everybody, since there is a definite royal claim for Zerubbabel (Jehoiachin's grandson) in Haggai and Zechariah. One can wonder whether Matthew was only aware of Jeremiah 22.
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos.....Ah, that's right, Jeconiah counts as the 14th member of the second column and the first member of the third. The other problem is that v. 12 places the birth of Shealtiel after the exile, and the birth of Jeconiah "at the time of the exile" in v. 11. Josiah died quite some time before the exile and the exile itself (counting either from 597 BC or 587 BC) was much longer than a single generation. Nehemiah 12:1 also states that Zerubbabel returned with Ezra and the exiles, implying that he was born during the exile itself -- which is impossible according to Matthew 1:12, as his father wasn't born until after the exile.
• 

  Narkissos

  I'm not so sure about the time of Shealtiel/Salathiel's birth according to Matthew 1:12: metoikesia means "deportation" rather than "exile" -- or am I too apologetic?

  Btw, the oracle on Jechoniah in Jeremiah 22 is somewhat contradicted by chapter 24, which identifies the exilees as the "good figs" -- in line with the post-exilic Jerusalem view that the golah (exilees/returnees) is the "true Israel", vs. the am ha'areç whose center is Samaria. This is also the perspective of the conclusion of the book of Kings, with the "restoration" of Jehoiachin in Babylon.
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos.....Thanks for the clarification; that would explain the discrepency with Shealtiel. But what about Josiah fathering Jeconiah at the time of the "deportation"? That's got to be a problem.
• 

  Narkissos

  Leolaia,

  Yup. A very vague approximation to say the least.

  I just remembered that between Jeremiah 22 and 24 comes the prophecy on the davidic Germ or Branch (çemach) which will be applied to Zerubbabel in Zechariah (6:12 and possibly 3:8).
• 

  peacefulpete

  Just thought some might find this thread again if it was picked up where it left off. To continue the discussion of the two irreconcilable genealogies I'll point out something else. The listing of Nathan (son of David) as the progenitor of Jesus might have had another intent beyond just addressing Matt's unawareness of the Jeconiah curse. There is some evidence that Nathan the prophet and Nathan the son of David were conflated in the minds of many by the time the Gospel Luke was completed. At least it was assumed that the Nathan son of David was a prophet by association of his name Nathan with Nathan the prophet. If so then the inclusion of a prestigious prophet would add to Jesus' clout as a prophet. Eusebius mentions this matter: in QUESTIONES EVANGELICAE AD STEPHANUM, III.2

  For differing opinions concerning the Messiah prevail among the Jews though all agree in leading [the pedigree] up to David, because of the promise of God to David. But yet some are persuaded that the Messiah will come from David and Solomon and the royal line while others eschew this opinion because serious accusation was levelled against the kings and because Jeconiah was denounced by the prophet Jeremiah and because it was said that no seed from him [Jeconiah] should arise to sit on the throne of David. For these reasons, therefore, they go another way, agreeing [with the descent] from David; not however, through Solomon but rather through Nathan, who was a child (παῖς) of David (they say that Nathan also prophesied, according to what is said in the books of Kings). They are certain that the Messiah would come forth from the successors of Nathan and trace the ancestry of Joseph from that point. Therefore, Luke, necessarily taking account of their opinion — though it was not his own — added to his account the ὡς ἐνομίζετο [=as was supposed]. In doing this he allowed Matthew to relate [the matter], not on the basis of supposition but as having the truth in the matters of genealogy.

  Further, the following passage in Zechariah that was interpreted as a reference to Jesus in John 19:37 mentions four houses (name) all of whom are those in Luke's genealogy. :

  ZECHARIAH 12:10-14

  10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born. 11 On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rim′mon in the plain of Megid′do. 12 The land shall mourn, each family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shim′e-ites (Simeon) by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.

  
  

  This would suggest importance, some expectation regarding those 4 names (including Nathan) among at least some Jews.