Jeconiah and the Curse

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
TheAristocat

TheAristocat

Senior Member
Oct 4, 2011
2,150
26
0
Summary​

So I've been wondering for some time about the curse of Coniah in the Bible. Now Jesus' genealogies trace back roughly to the cursed King Jeconiah (at least one of his genealogies). The claim is that this would make him incapable of becoming a king. Now people have tried to remedy this in a number of ways.

Theories​

1. One theory is that only Joseph's (Mary's husband and not Jesus' real father) line can be traced back to the cursed King Coniah. Therefore they claim that Jesus does not fall under this curse. But I've done research on my own, and I seem to remember Jesus as still falling under the curse even if that were the case. I'm willing to reassess that position though.

2. A second theory is that God forgave Jeconiah and removed his curse. But there is no evidence of this forgiveness in the Bible except for the curse simply not coming true. Jeconiah had children. His seed reigned on the throne, etc. Therefore this does not easily resolve the problem and seems more like a contradiction than a solution since nothing in the Bible says that God revoked his curse. There is only the evidence that God's curse did not come true, and no one can easily dismiss the possibility of this being a contradiction.

3. One theory I had was that the people in Jesus' genealogy who are attributed to Jeconiah's/Coniah's, etc. progeny simply use the same name as his progeny rather than being his progeny. At face value this seems to work, since I don't know enough about names, genealogy gaps, nicknames, etc. For example, it's been established that Coniah/Jeconiah are different variants of the same name. And there is one more name variation that is attributed to the name Jeconiah. But my theory draws attention to the fact that none of these names are exactly similar, and therefore there is the possibility that they are not the same individual. Moreover there is no mention of the particular version of the name of the cursed king in Jesus' genealogy, and some of the relatives attributed to the cursed king appear conspicuously out of order in Jesus' genealogies. This indicates that they might not even be the same people.

One of the things I'm worried about is the fact that one genealogy is significantly shorter than the other, and that may be the reason why some names fall out of their proper order. If that is the case, then there is still a possibility that there is a cursed individual/s in Jesus' genealogies. And, as said before, I seem to remember that placing our hope in Mary's genealogy would be futile, and one of the possibilities I came up with was the idea of adoption or levirate marriage.

Conclusion​

Anyway, what are your experiences in dealing with this problem? Is there anyone out there who might be able to offer fresh insights?
 
Would this help?

Exodus 34:7 and keeping justice and mercy for thousands, taking away iniquity, and unrighteousness, and sins; and he will not clear the guilty; bringing the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and to the children's children, to the third and fourth generation.

Also, as far as genealogies go, don't know if it helps to know this: there's an argument that where one account (in older languages) Mary's father is called Joseph, and in another, her Husband is called Joseph, meaning that both her father and husband were named Joseph. Two different root words both translated in modern languages as husband. I haven't looked any further into this enough to make an educated conclusion.
 
Last edited:
WolfInOxHide said:
Would this help?

Exodus 34:7 and keeping justice and mercy for thousands, taking away iniquity, and unrighteousness, and sins; and he will not clear the guilty; bringing the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and to the children's children, to the third and fourth generation.

Also, as far as genealogies go, don't know if it helps to know this: there's an argument that where one account (in older languages) Mary's father is called Joseph, and in another, her Husband is called Joseph, meaning that both her father and husband were named Joseph. Two different root words both translated in modern languages as husband. I haven't looked any further into this enough to make an educated conclusion.
Click to expand...

Those are some interesting points. I was going through the genealogies one day, and I remembered something about one of the Josephs in the genealogies being Mary's father. But I didn't understand it enough at the time. I still don't think that's the case, and I'm not sure how it would help if it were the case.

The passage about the "third and fourth generation" would be the biggest help. I'd have to study it more to see who the curse ended with. I seem to remember it ending with Zerubabel, because God compared Zerubabel to a signet ring, which he was putting on (?) - whereas with the cursed King Jeconiah God compared Jeconiah to a signet ring that he was pulling off. And Zerubabel is a descendant of Jeconiah.

So I think it's a possibility. Jewish Rabbis seem to think the curse had ended as well, believe it or not. But their explanations were so half-hearted and cryptic I was a long way from being sold on the idea. I'm still a bit skeptical. Thanks for the input, though. I'll give it some thought.
 
And myself not having a personal conclusion, to be fair about the argument from both sides, the lineage that includes Jeconiah is from Mary's side, the one that He was physically descended from.
 
Mat 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
Mat 1:11 And Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
Mat 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zorobabel;
Mat 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

This is the part of the geneology you are speaking about, I suppose. I don't find the name Coniah anywhere in the geneology. I do find a curse on Coniah

(]Jer 22:24 As I live, says Jehovah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah were the signet on My right hand, yet I would tear you out of there!
Jer 22:25 And I will give you into the hand of those who seek your life, and into the hand of those whose face you fear, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans.
Jer 22:26 And I will cast you and your mother who bore you into another country, there where you were not born; and there you shall die.
Jer 22:27 But concerning the land which they lift up with their soul, to return there, they shall not return there.
Jer 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised, broken jar, or a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they hurled, he and his seed, and are cast into the land which they do not know?
Jer 22:29 O earth, earth, earth! Hear the Word of Jehovah!
Jer 22:30 So says Jehovah, Write this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days. For not one from his seed will succeed, a man sitting on the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. )

and that his name was blotted out, but Jeconiah had more than one son, and it appears that the curse begins at the son, Coniah, who is not mentioned in the geneology, and not on his father, Jeconiah, who is in the geneology. To me it looks like there was a family split of some sort, and Jeconiahs descendants were cursed, but the other sons of Jeconiah did not fall under it, being only brothers. I could be wrong, having not studied it as much as you all evidently have, but then again, I could be right.

1Ki 8:24 who have kept for Your servant David, my father, that which You spoke to him; yea, You spoke with Your mouth, and with Your hand have fulfilled it as it is this day.
1Ki 8:25 And now, Jehovah, God of Israel, keep for Your servant David, my father, that which You spoke to him, saying, There shall not be cut off from you a man from before Me, sitting on the throne of Israel; only, if your sons watch their way, to walk before Me as you have walked before Me.
1Ki 8:26 And now, O God of Israel, let it be established, I beseech You, Your Word which You have spoken to Your servant, my father David.

You also have this verse to contend with, which implies that there would always be a king in David's linage.

Matthew followed strict Jewish tradition and used the geneology of the father, and not of the mother, whereas Luke, being a physician, realized that physically Jesus was only of human descent from His mother's side, broke from tradition and traced the geneology from first Mary, then back to tradition through Mary's male only ancestors.

If Jesus could not be king, it seems that simple fact would pretty much make quite a bit of the New Testament a lie, and Jesus Himself would be a false Messiah because He is Called King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I very well could be.
 
Last edited:
mdankoski said:
Mat 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
Mat 1:11 And Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
Mat 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zorobabel;
Mat 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

This is the part of the geneology you are speaking about, I suppose. I don't find the name Coniah anywhere in the geneology. I do find a curse on Coniah

(]Jer 22:24 As I live, says Jehovah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah were the signet on My right hand, yet I would tear you out of there!
Jer 22:25 And I will give you into the hand of those who seek your life, and into the hand of those whose face you fear, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans.
Jer 22:26 And I will cast you and your mother who bore you into another country, there where you were not born; and there you shall die.
Jer 22:27 But concerning the land which they lift up with their soul, to return there, they shall not return there.
Jer 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised, broken jar, or a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they hurled, he and his seed, and are cast into the land which they do not know?
Jer 22:29 O earth, earth, earth! Hear the Word of Jehovah!
Jer 22:30 So says Jehovah, Write this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days. For not one from his seed will succeed, a man sitting on the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. )

and that his name was blotted out, but Jeconiah had more than one son, and it appears that the curse begins at the son, Coniah, who is not mentioned in the geneology, and not on his father, Jeconiah, who is in the geneology. To me it looks like there was a family split of some sort, and Jeconiahs descendants were cursed, but the other sons of Jeconiah did not fall under it, being only brothers. I could be wrong, having not studied it as much as you all evidently have, but then again, I could be right.

1Ki 8:24 who have kept for Your servant David, my father, that which You spoke to him; yea, You spoke with Your mouth, and with Your hand have fulfilled it as it is this day.
1Ki 8:25 And now, Jehovah, God of Israel, keep for Your servant David, my father, that which You spoke to him, saying, There shall not be cut off from you a man from before Me, sitting on the throne of Israel; only, if your sons watch their way, to walk before Me as you have walked before Me.
1Ki 8:26 And now, O God of Israel, let it be established, I beseech You, Your Word which You have spoken to Your servant, my father David.

You also have this verse to contend with, which implies that there would always be a king in David's linage.

Matthew followed strict Jewish tradition and used the geneology of the father, and not of the mother, whereas Luke, being a physician, realized that physically Jesus was only of human descent from His mother's side, broke from tradition and traced the geneology from first Mary, then back to tradition through Mary's male only ancestors.

If Jesus could not be king, it seems that simple fact would pretty much make quite a bit of the New Testament a lie, and Jesus Himself would be a false Messiah because He is Called King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I very well could be.
Click to expand...

Jehoiakim was the father of Jeconiah. Jehoiakim is also listed as the father of Coniah. Under the listing of the name "Jeconiah" it reads: Jeconiah or Jehoiachin = "whom Jehovah establishes". Under the listing of Coniah it reads: Coniah = "Jehovah will establish" (another name for king Jehoiachin of Judah, the next to last king on the throne before the captivity).

So we know that...

1. Jehoiakim was the father of a man named Jeconiah.
2. Jehoiakim was the father of a man named Coniah.
3. Jeconiah can be a variant of Jehoiachin.
4. Coniah can be another name for Jehoiachin.

What we could possibly conclude from this is that Jehoiachin = Jeconiah/Coniah = the son of Jehoiakim and the cursed King. Of course we're not told why they count these three names as being variants of a single person. It's just that they do. But maybe they're wrong - they being those who hold that these individuals are all the same person. Also we know that...

5. Zerubbabel is a descendant of Jeconiah (the cursed king, supposedly).

The only thing that appears different is that in Matthew 1:11 Jehoiakim is not listed as the father of this Jeconiah, but rather a Josiah is listed as the father of this Jeconiah. So is this the same Jeconiah? That's my concern.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

I can't help the feeling that they may have jumped the gun on this one and just attributed the three names to one individual when there may not have been enough evidence for that claim. What do you think?
 
I don't know but I have found that which is common knowledge was sometimes lacking in description. For example, I can tell you "Obama said...." without describing exactly who Obama is. It's common knowledge, but try reading that 2000 years from now with no description out of the only book left that even has his name in it! I have also found that the ancient writers often called the most important ancestor their father, like we have all read in various places where people called David their father or Abraham their father, even though the person may have been anywhere from a father to a great - great - great grandfather. In other places people were called by another name because they had the attributes of that person, like where Jesus, referring to John the Baptist, said "Elijah has already come," when He was asked why the scripture said that Elijah must come first.

You could be right, or it could be any one these examples, too, and since there was not a regulated exact spelling dictionary of names, and even in English there was no set spelling of odd ancient names, and the bible translated by multiple translators, Jehoiachim could very well be just another spelling of Jehoiachin. It's interesting, though, and through it all Jesus is the King, and legally, in God's eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back