The Genealogy of Jesus
Part Two
SHEALTIEL AND ZERUBBABEL
The Lukan and Matthean lines come together once more in the generations
immediately following the deportation to Babylon, where both lines
include Shealtiel (Greek, Salathiel) and his son, Zerubbabel. The
generations around Shealtiel and Zerubbabel mark the first major
dilemma in untangling the genealogy of Jesus. Three problems may be
noted:
- In Matthew, Shealtiel’s father is Jechoniah. In Luke, Shealtiel’s
father is Neri.
- In both Matthew and Luke, Shealtiel is the father of Zerubbabel.
In 1 Ch 3:19, however, the father of Zerubbabel is Pedaiah.
- Following Zerubbabel, the genealogies of Jesus once again
diverge, with Matthew tracing a lineage through Abiud and Luke tracing
a lineage through Rhesa. Presumably, these are two sons of Zerubbabel.
In 1 Chronicles 3, however, the sons of Zerubbabel are listed as
Meshullam and Hananiah.
Let us take these issues one at a time.
The Father of Shealtiel
With Shealtiel, we are faced with precisely the same problem we face
with Joseph: both genealogies purport to identify his father, but the
two lists disagree! According to Jer 22:30, apparently Jechoniah was
condemned to die childless. The early death of Jehoiachin’s son
Zedekiah may well have been understood to be the fulfillment of this
curse. This immediately suggests that, while Shealtiel was the legal
heir of Jechoniah, he was not his biological descendant. How can this
be?
Levirate marriage?
One possibility is that, once Jechoniah was imprisoned in Babylon, his
wife contracted a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-6) with Neri. The
firstborn child of this union, Shealtiel, would legally be the heir of
Jechoniah. But one must then ask why there are six others also listed
as sons of “Jechoniah the captive” in 1 Chronicles 3. By the levirate
custom, the children after Shealtiel would be considered merely sons of
Neri and would not appear in the 1 Chronicles genealogy at all.
Zelophehad
adoption? According to the Zelophehad custom (Nu 36:8-9), if a
man had no sons, he could adopt the husband of his oldest daughter. By
this theory, Neri was Shealtiel’s grandfather—the father of his mother.
Thus, the line from Shealtiel back to Nathan (Lk) represents the
ancestry of his mother, while the line back to Solomon (Mt) represents
that of his father.
Adoption?
The Seder Olam Zuta and the
Yichus Letter in possession of the Zans Hassidim offer an intriguing possibility.
According to these sources, King Josiah had two sons: Johanan and
Eliakim (who assumed the name Jehoiakim upon his accession to the
kingship). Johanan’s daughter Tamar married Neri (or Neriah), a prince
from the line of Nathan. Neri and Tamar were the parents of Shealtiel
and his brothers. Upon the death of Neri, Tamar married Jechoniah.
Since his stepchildren were also of royal lineage--descendants of his
own grandfather Josiah--Jechoniah adopted them as his own.
According to the Zelophehad custom, daughter can only pass on
inheritance if she is married to a member of her father’s house (cf. Nu
36). Since Tamar was married to Neri, another Davidic descendant, there
does not seem to be any impediment in the kingship passing through her
(as a descendant of king Josiah) to her son Shealtiel.
Jehoiachin’s Curse
Jehoiachin, also called Jechoniah or Coniah, deserves special mention.
According to the book of Jeremiah, God pronounced a curse on
Jehoiachin’s line. This is most clearly expressed in Jeremiah 22:28-30.
Jeremiah 36:30 makes a similar pronouncement concerning Jehoiachin’s
father Jehoiakim. Some scholars take this pronouncement to describe a
permanent condemnation of Jehoiachin’s line; others believe that
Jeremiah’s words were only intended for the near future--the lifetime
of Jehoiachin himself.
The theory that the curse upon Jehoiachin was only temporary is
buttressed by several
facts recorded in the Bible and early Jewish tradition. First,
Jehoiachin apparently repented while in exile. The last chapter of 2
Chronicles records how he was elevated from prison and given special
honors at the Babylonian court. Although he was not permitted to return
to Judah, he is recognized by the Jews as the first Exilarch or ruler
of the exiled community in Babylon.
Second, there are also rabbinic sources that indicate God removed the
curse on Jehoiachin, which they attribute to his repentance while in
prison. For example, according to Leviticus
Rabbah 19:6:
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
(Zec 9:11) [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 (Song
4:7). A Heavenly Voice went forth and said to them: 'Return, ye
backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings'" (Jer 3:22).
Pesiqta Rabbati 47 records the
following:
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 Ch 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 (Hag 2:23). Behold, then how
penitence can set aside the entire decree!
See also b.Sanhedrin 37b-38a;
Pesiqta de Rab Kahana; and Numbers Rabbah 20:20). According to
these sources, the curse was lifted because of Jehoiachin’s repentance.
At any rate, if the adoption theory is correct, it provides a loophole
whereby Shealtiel and his descendants could be valid heirs of the
Davidic throne regardless of any curses related to Jehoiachin. They
were descendants of king Josiah, and thus of the royal line through
their mother but not through their natural father.
Third, in
any event, the Bible is unanimous in casting Zerubbabel as the
rightful heir and legal successor of Jechoniah. Later rabbinic
speculation insisted in no uncertain terms that the Messiah would be a
descendant of Zerubbabel. The medieval Tanhuma Genesis states:
Scripture alludes here to the verse,
"Who art thou, O great mountain
before Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain" (Zec 4:7). This verse
refers to the Messiah, the descendant of David. ... From whom will the
Messiah descend? From Zerubbabel.
The Father of Zerubbabel
While Matthew and Luke agree that Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel,
1 Chronicles 3:19 identifies Pedaiah as his father. Once again, appeal
may be made to the Jewish customs of levirate marriage and Zelophehad
adoption. Once again, a simpler solution seems to be the correct one.
It should be noted that not only the Gospel genealogies but every Bible
reference except 1 Chronicles 3:19 gives Shealtiel as the father of
Zerubbabel (cf. Hag 1:1; Ezr 3:2). In fact, even the LXX version of 1
Chronicles 3:19 gives Shealtiel, not Pedaiah, as the father of
Zerubbabel and his brother Shimei. Apparently, the text of 1 Chronicles
3:19 has become corrupted through scribal error or the corruption or
deterioration of the early manuscripts. The reference to Pedaiah is an
incorrect reading that may be dismissed from consideration.
The Children of Zerubbabel
How are we to identify Rhesa and Abiud, whom Luke and Matthew identify
as sons of Zerubbabel through whom Jesus’ lineage runs? Neither of
these names appears in 1 Chronicles 3 as sons of Zerubbabel. Here there
are a number of plausible solutions, but none that seems immediately
and intuitively right. First, as a general observation, we should note
once again the possibility of gaps in the Gospel genealogies. This is
especially the case in Matthew, who covers the time from Zerubbabel to
Joseph--over 500 years--with only ten named ancestors! So Abiud need
not be Zerubbabel’s son or even his grandson. All that is required is
that he be a descendant of Zerubbabel. Having said this, let us
consider the options available and some possible explanations.
Jewish tradition traces five Davidic lines from Zerubbabel. Two of
these lines derive from Zerubbabel’s foreign wives; the remaining three
from the children of Zerubbabel and his Jewish wife.
- The line of Shazrezzar.
Zerubbabel’s first wife was a Babylonian princess named Amytis who was
the mother of his firstborn son, Shazrezzar.
- The line of Reza.
Zerubbabel’s second wife was a Persian princess named Rhodah. She was
the mother of Zerubbabel’s second son, Reza.
- The line of Meshullam.
Zerubbabel’s third wife was a Jewish princess named Esthra.
Zerubbabel’s eldest son from this marriage was Meshullam. It is from
this line that the post-exilic Nesi’im
("Princes") of Israel are derived.
- The line of Hananiah.
Hananiah was the second son of Zerubbabel and Esthra. His descendants
became the post-exilic Exilarchs (rulers of the exiled community) of
Babylonia. The Exilarch Shecaniah III (ca. AD 50-80) is of special
note. He was Exilarch at the time of the destruction of the Second
Temple in AD 70, and many Jews looked to him to be their king.
- The line of Shelomith.
Zerubbabel’s lone daughter also came from his union with Esthra.
Shelomith married Elnathan, governor of Judea, and became the ancestor
of another Davidic line. Elnathan was himself a descendant of David
through Shephatiah, a son by Abital, David’s sixth wife.
Assuming that the Evangelists intended their genealogies to be truthful
statements of Jesus’ lineage, we must conclude that the Matthean
genealogy is represented in one of these lines and the Lukan in one of
the others. But which two lines?
We must immediately dismiss the line of Hananiah from consideration.
This line is the most thoroughly documented, and in fact many Jews
alive today trace descendancy from it. There is no plausible way to
identify the people named by either Matthew or Luke with known heirs of
this lineage.
We may also disqualify the line of Shelomith and Elnathan. This line is
fairly well documented. (Hillel the Great traced his Davidic lineage
through this line.) As with the line of Hananiah, there is little
chance of harmonizing the known genealogy of this line with the names
found in the New Testament. Moreover, it is highly unlikely to find
Matthew’s genealogy in this line. As we shall see, Matthew seems to
report the line of legal succession rather than natural descendancy.
Since Shelomith was the youngest child of Zerubbabel, and since there
were valid lines of succession through Zerubbabel’s sons, there would
be little room in Jewish law for a descendant of Shelomith to be the
royal Davidic heir.
The similarity of the names Reza and Rhesa (in Luke) immediately
suggests the possibility that the line from Zerubbabel and princess
Rhodah is in fact the lineage Luke described. Rhesa is a plausible
Hellenized form of the Persian name Reza. Given the strong stance of
Ezra and Nehemiah against mixed marriages, it would not be surprising
of these lines of descent from Zerubbabel would be omitted from the
Chronicler’s genealogical data.
This leaves two possibilities for the Matthean genealogy: the line of
Shazrezzar and the line of Meshullam. What little is known about these
two lines leaves us in a quandary as to which to choose. If Matthew
(and presumably God) agreed with Ezra about the invalidity of
Zerubbabel’s sons from foreign wives, we are forced to find Abiud,
Eliakim, and the rest in the line of Meshullam. Biblical history,
however, itself suggests that having a foreign mother does not
disqualify one from kingship of Israel: David himself had female
ancestors who were Canaanite (Tamar, Rahab) and Moabite (Ruth).
According to Deuteronomy 23:3, Moabites were to be excluded from the
community of Israel "even to the tenth generation." Since David was a
fourth-generation descendant of the Moabite Ruth, his claim even to
Jewish identity is remarkably flimsy! If a foreign mother is not seen
as an impediment, then the line of Shazrezzar, the firstborn, is
clearly to be preferred. Abiud and the rest might well be found several
generations down from Zerubbabel himself.