Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he is a descendant of King Jehoiachin [Answered]

Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he is a descendant of King Jehoiachin. God cursed both this king and his offspring, saying that none of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of David.

There are some Bible teachers who argue that only Jesus is qualified to be the Messiah because of the curse on Jehoiachin. In other words, it is argued that the Messiah should have come through the royal line of Jehoiachin but that king’s descendants were disqualified from sitting on the throne. Therefore, it is only through the virgin birth that the curse of Jehoiachin’s descendants can be bypassed.

In reality, however, there is no need to raise this argument, since the curse on Jehoiachin may only have referred to his own sons and, more importantly, the Hebrew Bible gives strong indications that he repented and the curse was reversed. This understanding of the text is actually confirmed by Rabbinic tradition.

According to Matthew 1:12, Yeshua’s genealogy is traced through Jeconiah (a nickname for Jehoiachin). He was the son of Jehoiakim and the grandson of Josiah, reigning for just three months before being exiled by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (see 2 Kings 24:6–17). Of him it was said by the Lord, “Record this man as if 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 anymore in Judah” (Jer. 22:30).

How then could the Messiah be traced through his lineage? According to John McTernan and Lou Ruggiero, “The messianic line runs from David to Solomon to Rehoboam to Jeconiah to Zerubbabel to the Messiah. There is no place in the Bible which shows the curse on the kingly line has been lifted. Because of the curse, anyone born of a human father and [sic] claims to be the Messiah will have the curse of Jeconiah to block such a claim.

The Messiah of Israel cannot have a human father.”²¹¹ Of course, I fully affirm the supernatural, virginal conception of the Messiah and, as noted above (see 5.9), this helps explain how the Messiah can be both earthly and heavenly, the son of David and yet David’s lord. In terms of the curse on Jehoiachin, however, there is no need to point to the necessity of the virgin birth since:

(1) there is, in fact, solid scriptural evidence that the curse was reversed; and

(2) the curse may only have applied primarily to Jehoiachin’s immediate descendants.²¹² Let’s take a look at the passage in Jeremiah 22 in greater depth.

As I noted in my commentary on Jeremiah concerning Jehoiachin:

A command is given (v. 30) in the pl. (kitbû, write!) to record that he will be ‘arîrî, childless (see Gen 15:2, and note esp. Lev 20:20–21, where being ‘arîrî is a curse for an unauthorized union), yet v. 28 spoke of his offspring while 1Ch 3:16–17 states that he had seven sons. The explanation for this is found in the rest of v. 30, which should be understood in light of the presumed ardent hope and desire of the people of Judah—in their land and in exile—that this son of David, or one of his sons, would be restored to the throne.

God says it will not happen, the emphasis being on “his lifetime” (in which he’ll not succeed) and the lifetimes of his sons, none of whom would reign on the throne, making it as if he was childless (so NIV). In keeping with this, the divine promises to the line of David are not renewed until the days of Zerubbabel, his grandson (see Hag 2:20–23, and… Jer 52:31–34).²¹³

Note further the comment of evangelical scholar Walter Kaiser Jr., who observes,

According to 1 Chronicles 3:16–17, Jehoiachin had seven descendants. These, however, were hauled off into Babylon and there, according to an archaeological finding on a Babylonian tablet in the famous Ishtar Gate, all seven were made eunuchs. In this manner, Jehoiachin became “as if childless,” as no man of his seed prospered, nor did any sit on David’s throne.²¹⁴

Similarly, Jeremiah commentator John Bright explains: “The figure is that of a census list. Jehoiachin is to be entered as childless since, as far as throne succession was concerned, he was as good as that.”²¹⁵

You may wonder, “Is it really that simple? Is this whole thing of a lasting curse on Jehoiachin’s descendants an exaggeration?” Let’s take a look at Jeremiah 36:30, a passage that is rarely cited in these discussions, but one that is quite relevant, since in Jeremiah 36:30, it is prophesied of Jehoiakim—the father of Jehoiachin!—that, “He will have no one to sit on the throne of David.”

But his son Jehoiachin did sit on David’s throne, reigning for three months and still this prophecy was recorded as true. What then did this prophecy mean? It certainly did not mean that there was a curse on all of Jehoiakim’s future descendants, nor did it mean that none of his sons would sit on the throne at all. Rather, the fact that Jehoiachin did sit on David’s throne for three months meant that any reign of any of Jehoiakim’s sons would be fleeting at best, completely devoid of the blessing of God.²¹⁶

Yet the language of Jeremiah 36:30 is very similar to the language of Jeremiah 22:30. On what basis do we press the meaning of the latter so far beyond the meaning of the former? And on what basis do we make the pronouncement against Jehoiachin one that would last for all time when the context points primarily to a curse on his immediate offspring?

In reality, however, we don’t even need to debate these points at all, since the Tanakh gives two important pieces of evidence that point to: (1) Jehoiachin’s repentance and (2) the subsequent removal of any generational curse.

The first piece of evidence is found in Jeremiah 52:31–34 which describes the special favor that was shown to Jehoiachin after decades in prison in exile:

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 king of Judah and freed him from prison on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. Day by day the king of Babylon gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death.

In light of the divine fury directed against Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:24–29, this reversal of circumstances is quite striking, suggesting a change of heart in the king. For the Talmudic rabbis and their successors, there was little doubt: Jehoiachin had repented! Further, explicit evidence was provided in Haggai 2:20–23, speaking of Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jehoiachin, who became the governor of Judah after the return from exile:

The word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month: “Tell Zerubbabel governor of Judah that I will shake the heavens and the earth. I will overturn royal thrones and shatter the power of the foreign kingdoms. I will overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will fall, each by the sword of his brother.

‘On that day,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the Lord Almighty.”

Note carefully these words in Haggai 2:23: “ ‘I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you.’ ” Now compare this promise with the threat against Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:24: “ ‘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.’

 ” Do you see it? The Lord told Jehoiachin that even if he were as close to God and as personal to him as the signet ring on his own hand, he would be cast off—and he was. Two generations later, the Lord tells his grandson, “I will make you like my signet ring, because I have chosen you.” Without a doubt, the curse was reversed and favor was restored.

Based on these texts, Rabbinic literature is filled with references to Jehoiachin’s repentance and his subsequent restoration, the final evidence being the promise to his grandson Zerubbabel.

See, for example, the commentary of Radak to Jeremiah 22:30, who follows the Talmud and midrashic writings in using this example to extol the power of repentance, namely, “Great is the power of repentance, which can nullify a decree and nullify an oath” (see also b. R. H. 17b, for further statements on the power of repentance; see also the comments of Shelah; cf. also t. Niddah 70b; see further Netivot Olam b, 163; Hiddushei Aggadot, 1:118).

There are actually many statements in the Rabbinic writings that speak of Jehoiachin’s repentance and the reversal of any curse, as illustrated by this lengthy citation from Pesikta deRav Kahana 24:11.²¹⁷

I accepted the repentance of Jeconiah: shall I not accept your repentance? A cruel decree had been imposed upon Jeconiah: Scripture says, This man Coniah is a despised, shattered image (ʿṣb) (Jer. 22:28), for Jeconiah, according to R. Abba bar Kahana, was like a man’s skull (ʿṣm) which once shattered is utterly useless, or, according to R. Helbo, like a wrapper of reed matting that dates are packed in, which, once emptied, is utterly useless.

And Scripture goes on to say of Jeconiah: He is a vessel that none reaches for with delight (ibid.), a vessel, said R. Hama bar R. Hanina, such as a urinal; or a vessel, said R. Samuel bar Nahman, such as is used for drawing off blood. [These comments on Jeconiah derive from] R. Meir’s statement: The Holy One swore that He would raise up no king out of Jeconiah king of Judah.

Thus Scripture: As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim … were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24), words by which God was saying, explained R. Hanina bar R. Isaac, “Beginning with thee, Jeconiah, I pluck out the kingship of the house of David.”

It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew for “pluck thee” is not as one would expect ʿtkk, but the fuller and less usual ʿtknk, which may also be rendered “mend thee”—that is, mend thee by thy repentance. Thus in the very place, [the kingship], whence Jeconiah was plucked, amends would be made to him: [his line would be renewed].

1. Ze’era said: I heard the voice of R. Samuel bar Isaac expounding from the teacher’s chair a specific point concerning Jeconiah, but I just cannot remember what it was. R. Aha Arila asked: Did it perhaps have some connection with this particular verse—Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, a man [who] will not prosper in his days (Jer. 22:30)? “Yes, that’s it!” said R. Ze’era. Thereupon R. Aha Arila went on to give R. Samuel bar Isaac’s interpretation of the verse: In his days Jeconiah, so long as he is childless, will not prosper, but when he has a son, then he will prosper by his son’s prosperity.
2. Aha bar Abun bar Benjamin, citing R. Abba bar R. Papi, said: Great is the power of repentance, which led God to set aside an oath even as it led Him to set aside a decree. Whence the proof that a man’s repentance led Him to set aside the oath He made in the verse As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24)?

   The proof is in the verse where Scripture says [of one of Jeconiah’s descendants] In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel… the son of Shealtiel… and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). And the proof that a man’s repentance led God to set aside a decree He issued in the verse Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, etc. (Jer. 22:30)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says, The sons of Jeconiah—the same is Asir—Shealtiel his son, etc.

   (1 Chron. 3:17). R. Tanhum bar Jeremiah said: Jeconiah was called Asir, “one imprisoned,” because he had been in prison (‘asurim); and his son called “Shealtiel” because he was like a sapling, newly set out (hustelah), through whom David’s line would be continued.

3. Tanhuma said: Jeconiah was called Asir, “imprisoned,” because God imprisoned Himself by His oath in regard to him; and Jeconiah’s son was called Shealtiel, “God consulted,” because God consulted the heavenly court, and they released Him from His oath.²¹⁸

So, this Rabbinic text—in homiletical, not literal fashion, based on a statement in the Talmud in b. Sanh 38a—goes so far as to claim that God asked the heavenly court to release him from his oath against Jehoiachin! That’s how firmly entrenched this king’s repentance was in the minds of the rabbis.

More importantly, there is explicit scriptural support for the position that any curse against Jehoiachin’s posterity was lifted, as the Messianic promises are renewed in his grandson Zerubbabel. It is therefore only fitting that the Messiah’s genealogy be traced through Jehoiachin.

There is, however, one final question that needs to be asked, and this one is for the anti-missionaries, since they commonly cite the curse on Jehoiachin as proof that Jesus could not be the Messiah. The argument of Jews for Judaism, cited above (5.11), is typical: “Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.”

My question, then, is this: Are these anti-missionaries unfamiliar with all the ancient Rabbinic traditions that state that the curse was reversed?²¹⁹ That would be hard to imagine, since these Rabbinic texts are quite well known and some of the anti-missionaries are educated rabbis. Why then do they advance an argument that flies in the face of Rabbinic tradition? That would be like a Christian advancing an argument that contradicted the teachings of the New Testament.

Could it be that it is quite hypocritical for some anti-missionaries to raise the charge of deception or dishonesty against Messianic Jews when, in reality, this is a charge by which they should examine themselves? After all, if an organization is called Jews for Judaism, shouldn’t it be expected to represent the position of traditional Judaism rather than to attempt to refute the Christian position by any and all means? For lovers of truth, this is certainly something to consider.

²¹¹ John McTernan and Lou Ruggiero, Jesus of Nazareth: The King Messiah (Oklahoma City, OK: Hearthstone Publishing, 2002), 183. Further support for this position is allegedly found in Jeremiah 52:10 which states that the rest of Zedekiah’s sons (Zedekiah was Jehoiachin’s uncle and the last king of Judah) were killed by the Babylonians, and therefore the Messiah had to come through Jehoiachin’s line, which was cursed—and therefore there had to be a virgin birth.

Again, these arguments are not compelling, especially when one realizes that the Messiah simply had to be a descendant of David, not a descendant of the line of Davidic kings. See also immediately below, n. 212.

²¹² It was also noted earlier (above, 5.11) that the Scriptures do not require the Messianic line to proceed through Solomon, meaning that the Messiah did not have to be a descendant of Jehoiachin.

²¹³ Brown, “Jeremiah,” EBC² (vol. 7) to Jer. 22:28–30.

²¹⁴ Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 310.

²¹⁵ John Bright, Jeremiah (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1965).

²¹⁶ According to Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, commenting on Jer. 36:30, “When the Heb. verb yašab [“sit enthroned”] is used of a king, it implies a certain degree of permanence rather than so short a time as ninety days.”

²¹⁷ Parts of this text are also found in Midrash Rabbah to Song of Solomon 8:5; Midrash Rabbah Leviticus, Margoliot 10:5; cf. also Otsar Midrashim, Maasiyot Keta b; Orchot Tzadikim, Gate 26, Repentance; Shelah to Yoma 16; in the Zohar—as well as in other Rabbinic sources—Jeconiah’s repentance explains the genealogy in 1 Chron. 3:17; see Zohar with additions, part b, 106a.

²¹⁸ This is the standard translation of William G. Braude, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days, 2nd ed., trans. William G. (Gershon Zev) Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (1975; repr., Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 316.

²¹⁹ Note that Uri Yosef, writing for the Messiah Truth website, is aware of these traditions but then makes the amazing statement, “This is a rather curious position, since it is consistent with the opinion of the Sages of the Talmud, that Jeconiah repented while in exile, and that exile atones for all sins (e.g., Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 37b–38a).

In this case, these Christian apologists and missionaries actually admit, perhaps unwittingly, that the shedding of blood is not required to bring about the remission of sins!” (Uri Yosef, “Genealogical Scams and Flimflams,” Messiah Truth Project, http://www.messiahtruth.com/genealogy.html, n. 6.).

But which “Christian apologist or missionary” thinks that every single time someone repented, an animal sacrifice had to be offered for atonement? If this were the case, there would not have been a sacrificial animal left in Israel within a few days of the setting up of the first altar, nor would anyone have had time to do anything except offer sacrifices at the Tabernacle/Temple. For a refutation of this strange notion, cf. vol. 1, 1.11; vol. 2, 3.8–3.9.

Brown, M. L. (2007). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 4: New Testament objections. (97). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Baker Books.

Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he is a descendant of King Jehoiachin [Answered]