Jesus’ Lineage and Jeconiah’s Curse

The Curse:

Jeremiah 22:24-5 – “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.”

Haggai 2:23 – 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.”

The Apparent Problem:

“Here is where the “problem” lies. Jeconiah is listed in Matthew 1’s genealogy”

The Resolution:

py3ak from the Puritan Board:

You may find Fairbairn’s discussion of the two genealogies illuminating.

I studied this some time ago, and after a while it’s easy to go cross-eyed! But in Luke 3:27 Salathiel is said to be the son of Neri, not of Jeconiah.

Jeconiah and Jehoiakim were both cursed (Jeremiah 36:30). In the curse upon (Je)Coniah, the curse upon Jehoiakim was fulfilled. At that point, the line of Solomon comes to an end, and the inheritance passes to the line of Nathan. After David, Matthew traces descent through Solomon, but Luke traces it through Nathan. But they coincide at Salathiel and Zorobabel (Lucan spelling), precisely because it was at that point that the legal descent of the kingship and the physical descent coincided for a time before they diverged again, to coincide once more in Matthan, and then in Jesus.

Source:, Comments 1, 3


Christ in the Title Page of the Bible

Robert Traill (The Lord’s Prayer, John 17:24), Works 2:41-42:

It is called the blood of the everlasting covenant, Heb. 13:20. Christ’s blood was not only redeeming and purchasing blood, a just and full price both for the heirs and for the inheritance; but it was sealing blood, and confirming of that covenant, in and by which the inheritance was secured to the heirs, and the heirs secured for the inheritance. Alas! many have the Bible, and use it but little; and many use it amiss, because they know not its right name. It is well and warrantably, from its contents, called, in its title page, in all languages and translations, The Old and New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But how few, in reading this title, mind the use and virtue of the blood of Jesus, which turned the covenant of God’s grace into the testament of Christ, and thereby sealed and confirmed all the good words and good things in that covenant?

Source:, Comment 1

Whence Came This Spark Of Faith?

Robert Traill (The Lord’s Prayer, John 17:24), Works 2:21:

Whence came this spark of faith to be kindled in my heart? Did it naturally grow in my heart? No. Time was when I was without it, Eph. 2:12, and loved to be without it. Did Satan plant it? No. I find him to be the great enemy of it; and I never felt his enmity, till I began to trust Jesus Christ; and it is that in me he mainly assaults. Did ministers, and the means of grace, plant faith in me? No! I enjoyed them when no faith was wrought in me; and when it is wrought, all their power, without Christ’s grace and Spirit concurring, cannot raise this faith to act and exercise. Therefore, surely, this faith came from Jesus Christ himself. Was it not from the work, and will, and love, of Christ? How easy and native is the inference? If faith in Christ be the work of his love, how warrantably may I look, by that faith, for all the good that this love purposeth, promiseth, and prayeth for to me?

Source:, Comment 1

It Has Often Led To Amazing Discoveries

“…it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

– Dr. Nelson Glueck (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31)


Why are there Only Four REAL Gospels?

Stand to Reason on extra-canonical gospels:

…But these weren’t the only Gospels about Jesus in the ancient world. In fact, we have discovered many other Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, and so on.

Given the plethora of Gospels out there, why does the New Testament only include Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? What is so special about these four Gospels?

…Simply put, the four Gospels are the REAL Gospels of Jesus’ life because they were recognized widely in the early Church, they are the earliest Gospels we possess, they are apostolic, and they lack obvious embellishment

Read more:

Now a Man Prays

C.Matthew McMahon:

Burroughs’ conclusion on prayer….from the last sermon in Gospel Worship (completed).

“Now, put all that has been said together, and this it what it is to pray: when I pray understandingly, when I give myself to prayer, when there are the breathings of the Holy Spirit in my prayer, when there is purity of heart like a golden vial, together with sincerity, when it is done in truth, when it is in faith, when it comes from a spiritual adoption, when it is in fervency, constancy, reverence, humility, and all of it is put up in the name of Jesus Christ, now a man prays.

Source:, Comment 1

Why Did Jesus Give Mary Into The Care Of John?

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444) commenting on John 19:26-27:

He took thought for His mother, paying no heed to His own bitter agony, for His sufferings affected Him not. He gave her into the charge of the beloved disciple (this was John, the writer of this book), and bade him take her home, and regard her as a mother; and enjoined His own mother to regard him as none other than her true son—by his tenderness, that is, and affection, fulfilling and stepping into the place of Him,Who was her Son by nature.

But as some misguided men have thought that Christ, when He thus spake, gave way to mere fleshly affection—away with such folly! to fall into so stupid an error is only worthy of a madman—what good purpose, then, did Christ hereby fulfil? First, we reply, that He wished to confirm the command on which the Law lays so much stress. For what saith the Mosaic ordinance? Honour thy father and thy mother, that it may he well with thee. His commandment unto us did not cease with exhorting us to perform this duty, but threatened us with the extreme penalty of the Law, if we chose to disregard it, and has put sin against our parents after the flesh on a par with sin against God. For the Law which ordered that the blasphemer should undergo the sentence of death, saying: Let him that blasphemeth the Name of the Lord, he put to death, also subjected to the same penalty the man who employs his licentious and unruly tongue against his parents: He that curseth father or mother shall surely he put to death. As, then, the Lawgiver hath ordained that we should pay such honour to our parents, surely it was right that the commandment thus proclaimed should be confirmed by the approval of the Saviour; and as the perfect form of every excellence and virtue through Him first came into the world, why should not this virtue be put on the same footing as the rest? For, surely, honour to parents is a very precious kind of virtue. And how could we learn that we ought not to lightly regard love toward them, even when we are overwhelmed by a flood of intolerable calamities, save by the example of Christ first of all, and through Him? For best of all, surely, is he who is mindful of the holy commandments, and is not diverted from the pursuit of duty in stormy and troublous times, and not in peace and quietness alone.

Besides, also, was not the Lord, I say, right to take thought for His mother, when she had fallen on a rock of offence, and when her mind was in a turmoil of perplexity? For, as He was truly God, and looked into the motions of the heart, and knew its secrets, how could He fail to know the thoughts about His crucifixion, which were then throwing her into sore distress? Knowing, then, what was passing in her heart, He commended her to the disciple, the best of guides, who was able to explain fully and adequately the profound mystery. For wise and learned in the things of God was he who received and took her away gladly, to fulfil all the Saviour’s Will concerning her.

See Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Vol. 48, John IX-XXI, trans. Thomas Randell (London: Walter Smith, 1885), Vol. 2, Book XII, Chapter xix, pp. 634-635.

Source:, Comment 6