Zerubbabel and the Genealogies of Christ

In The Genealogies of Christ — Two Genealogies I discussed the genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke.  This post continues by looking at the descent of Christ in relation to two ancestors which curiously appear in both genealogies.

Crossing Ancestry

Matthew 1:12-13

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

In Matthew, the line is Jeconiah / Salathiel / Zorobabel / Abiud.

Luke 3:27

Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

In Luke, the descent is Neri / Salathiel / Zorobabel / Rhesa.

The lines appear to cross at Salathiel (usually spelled “Shealtiel” in the Old Testament) and Zorobabel (“Zerubbabel”), showing different sons for Zerubbabel and different fathers for Shealtiel.  In addition, I Chronicles 3:17 lists Salathiel as the son of “Assir,” the son of Jeconiah.

It is easy to reconcile Matthew and I Chronicles.  Matthew left some generations out (see previous post), so when he says “Jechonias begat Salathiel,” we know he left out Assir, and that Salathiel / Shealtiel was the grandson of Jeconiah.  That leaves Luke unreconciled.  Neri is not Assir, and Neri’s father is Melchi, not Jeconiah.  The difference raises the obvious question:  how could Salathiel have two fathers?

Furthermore, Chronicles says Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah (probably Salathiel’s younger brother, possibly his uncle).  However, Zerubbabel also appears in Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah, always as the son of Salathiel / Shealtiel.  Perhaps it will help if we put it all in a table:

Old Testament
Matthew Luke
Josiah Josias Cosam
Jehoiakim (Jehoiakim – omitted) Addi
Jeconiah Jechonias Melchi
Assir (Assir – omitted) Neri
Pedaiah (Salathiel) Salathiel Salathiel
Zerubbabel Zorobabel Zorobabel
Meshullam Abiud Rhesa

Both Pedaiah and Salathiel are in the Old Testament column to reflect the difference between Chronicles and other Old Testament accounts.  But we’re left with three questions.  1) Who was Zerubbabel’s son?  2) What is the deal with Pedaiah / Salathiel?  3) How could Salathiel have two fathers (Neri and Assir)?

Zerubbabel’s Sons — Abiud or Rhesa

Different sons create no difficulty at all.  Zerubbabel could have easily had two (or more) sons.  I Chronicles 3 lists several.  The names differ between Chronicles and the New Testament genealogies, but many Jews were known by more than one name.

If Zerubbabel was the royal heir, the son listed in Matthew (Abiud) would have been the royal heir (probably the firstborn), while Rhesa (listed in Luke) was a later son, from whose line Mary came.  Luke was not tracing the firstborn or the legal heir, so the crossing of ancestry lines, with different sons of Zerubbabel carrying on the respective lines, creates no problem.

What About Pedaiah?

I Chronicles 3 lists Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah.  Yet, elsewhere (including the New Testament genealogies), Shealtiel / Salathiel is listed as the father of Zerubbabel.  So, which is it?  I know of three possibilities.

1. Another Zerubbabel

I Chronicles 3 may list a different Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah.   Pedaiah, as well as Shealtiel, could have named a son Zerubbabel.

However, would Chronicles have neglected the important Zerubbabel?  Shealtiel’s son was the first governor after the exile, and the Lord called him “chosen” and “a signet.”  It seems strange, if there were two contemporaries, that Pedaiah’s Zerubbabel but not Shealtiel’s would be mentioned, since he was so important elsewhere in Scripture.

2. Adoption

Salathiel may have adopted Zerubbabel.  Chronicles gives no sons of Salathiel, or Malchiram (the next in line).  If neither had a son, the eldest royal male heir would have been Pedaiah and then his son Zerubbabel.  Perhaps Salathiel grew old without a son and adopted Zerubbabel as his son and heir.

The New Testament genealogies make this unlikely.  Matthew says Salathiel “begat” Zerubbabel — not a typical description of adoption.  Luke traces physical descent from David (and Adam), so we would expect Luke to list the biological father (Pedaiah) rather than Salathiel.  However, this kind of adoption would not have violated either physical descent from David or the royal line, so it can’t be ruled out entirely.

3. Levirate Marriage

There may have been a Levirate marriage.  If a man died childless, his brother or near relative would marry his wife, and their first son would be the legal heir of the deceased.  (This is what is described in the marriage of Boaz and Ruth, in Ruth 3-4, and the basis of the Sadducees’ question in Matthew 22:23-28.)  If Salathiel died young and childless, a relative (Pedaiah) would have married his wife.  Their first son would be the legal firstborn and heir of Salathiel.  Zerubbabel would still be physically and legally descended from David in the royal line from Jeconiah.

Again, in Luke’s biological genealogy we would expect the biological father, but it has Salathiel.  So Levirate descent seems unlikely, yet it would not invalidate Luke’s purpose, since David was also Pedaiah’s ancestor.

So, Which Is It?

Each of the three has problems, but I can’t definitively rule out any of them.  We know the lists are accurate, because Scripture is true (and as I mentioned in the last post, the Jews would have been quick to note problems in the genealogies).  So there must be an explanation, but I don’t think we can determine which is accurate.

There may be another explanation for the Pedaiah / Salathiel / Zerubbabel question, but it seems likely that one of these is correct.  If we needed to know for sure, the Lord would have made it clear to us.

Salathiel’s Father

Who was the father of Salathiel (the father of Zerubbabel)?  Was it Neri, as per Luke, or was he descended from Jeconiah (through Assir), as per Matthew and Chronicles?  How do we resolve this apparent discrepancy?  I see four three possibilities.

1. A Different Salathiel

This is perhaps the simplest explanation.  The Salathiel / Zerubbabel in Luke’s line could be a completely different Salathiel / Zerubbabel pairing from the one in Matthew, and throughout the Old Testament.

In both lists, the Salathiel / Zerubbabel pairing is half way between David and Christ, so if they were different, they both lived about the time of the Babylonian Exile.  It seems much more likely, given the same time frame, that they refer to the same people.

2. A Levirate Marriage

Perhaps Salathiel was born as a result of a Levirate marriage (as discussed above).  His legal father would have been Assir, the son of Jeconiah, but his biological father would have been Neri.  Neri would have been the nearest kinsman who was willing / able to marry the wife of Assir, and Salathiel would have been their firstborn.

Chronicles lists no near relative with the name “Neri.”  The Salathiel of Matthew was in the royal line, descended from Solomon through Josiah and Jeconiah, while Neri descended from Nathan.  Neri was not a particularly close relative, so it is unlikely he would take part in a Levirate marriage as the nearest relative.  A Levirate marriage could theoretically explain this question, but it would be very surprising.

3. Assir Had a Daughter, and No Son

At least one commentary speculates that Assir had a daughter, and no son, and his daughter married Neri.  Thus, Salathiel would have been Neri’s son, and Assir would have been his maternal grandfather, with Jeconiah his maternal great-grandfather.

This seems very unlikely.  Jeconiah would have been about 80 at the time of the return led by Zerubbabel.  The great-grandson of an 80-year-old man would probably be younger than 25 years, yet Zerubbabel was mature enough to be accepted as leader and governor.

4. The Father-in-Law

As we’ve seen (last post), Luke probably listed at least one father-in-law — he could have listed others.  Most likely, Neri was Salathiel’s father-in-law and Zerubbabel’s maternal grandfather, while Assir was Salathiel’s father and Zerubbabel’s paternal grandfather.

If so, Zerubbabel was descended from David through both parents, his mother through Nathan down to Neri, and his father (Salathiel) in the royal line, through Solomon to Jeconiah.  It is even possible that Neri had no sons, only a daughter, and his inheritance passed to her (and Salathiel) and then on to Zerubbabel.

So, Which Is It?

Again, we can’t know for certain (and if we needed to know, the Lord would have made it clear).  But the strong likelihood is that Assir was the father of Salathiel, and Neri was his father-in-law, with Zerubbabel descended from David in both lines.

Why Do the Lines Cross?

The lineage of Christ is not an accident — an all-wise God decided His Son would be born with these two particular lines of descent.

As I’ve said, we can’t know that the Salathiel / Zerubbabel pairings in the two lines refer to the same men, but they probably do — and at a key time.  Salathiel is first in Matthew after the Babylonian captivity, a point to which Matthew (and the Holy Spirit) drew our focus (Matthew 1:17).  God did this intentionally, and wanted us to notice it.

Why?  Perhaps it has something to do with this man Zerubbabel.

  • He led the return from exile (Ezra 2:1-2), restored the altar and daily worship (Ezra 3:2), and rebuilt the Temple (Ezra 3:8).  He protected the purity of the Lord’s work and worship, against opposition (Ezra 4:2-3).
  • He obeyed the Lord (Ezra 5:1-2, Haggai 1:12-15).
  • He ensured the daily needs of the Levites who led in worship (Nehemiah 12:47).

The Lord gave Zerubbabel two great statements of promise.  It is hard to think of anyone outside of David, and of Messiah Himself, who received not one, but two, messages like these two:

Zechariah 4:6-10

6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.
8 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you.
10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

Haggai 2:21-23

21 Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
22 And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
23 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

Zerubbabel was God’s chosen servant to restore His people to their land, to right worship, to where they were supposed to be.  In a sense, Zerubbabel foreshadowed the Saviour who would come to save His people from their sins.

Perhaps that would explain two lines of descent brought together for two generations before parting again, so the legal and biological lines met in this one man, before they ultimately met in Christ.  Perhaps the Lord wanted to point, not only to Abraham and David, but also to Zerubbabel, to whom He had said, “I will make thee as a signet.”

Next:  Rations for Jehoiachin

The Genealogies of Christ — Summary with links to other articles

About Jon Gleason

Former Pastor of Free Baptist Church of Glenrothes
This entry was posted in Rightly Dividing and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Zerubbabel and the Genealogies of Christ

  1. Ron says:

    Thank you for your time explaining Matthew 1:12-13 Luke 3:27

    • Jon Gleason says:

      I’m glad you found it helpful. 🙂

      • Keith Pearcy says:

        I enjoyed reading your dissection and final assessment to the two lineages. I would lean towards your final outcome and highlight of the importance and significance of Zerubbabel and ultimately to Christ thru both parents. I would also add that I believe it has even greater prophetic implication and connection to the book of Revelation. Thank you for your thoughtful post on this matter.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Hello, Keith. I apologise for the delay in this clearing moderation — the blog was dormant.

        Thank you for your comment. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on the implication/connection to Revelation.

    • Keith Pearcy says:

      I can see you have a good Level of understanding of what I was trying to convey. There is so much more I could share but, like I said previously, trying to text it wouldn’t do it justice.
      For over 40 yrs I’ve taken a huge interest and studied Rev as it relates to the OT prophets and some of Paul’s writing on the end.I will leave you this nugget to ponder regarding Zec 4
      Do you notice how many lamps and pipes there are in vs 2?
      Yet only 2 pipes pour out oil in vs 12?
      In Rev 1:20 Jesus tells us of a mystery. What does he reveal? How can we relate that to Zec 4?
      In Rev ch2-3, how many churches does Jesus find no fault with? What are they asked to do?
      God bless you brother, on your journeys.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Thank you for the thoughts, Keith.

        I’ve always understood the symbolism of the pipes here to reflect that it is the same Holy Spirit that empowers the churches that empowers the two witnesses. I’ve never drawn a connection between two particular churches and the witnesses, because I’ve never assumed it was the same pipes in verse 12. I’m not persuaded of that but I will think on it.

        Thanks again.

  2. Vijay says:

    Jeconiah had no child both son and daughter. Jeremiah 22:30 then who is the father of Assir

  3. Andz Evz says:

    It’s also possible that Salathiel (son of Assir) had no sons, just a daughter who married Salathiel (son of Neri) or a daughter of Jechoniah or another relative married into the Nathanite line, creating a close kinship between the lines of Nathan and of Solomon. Then Pedaiah and the other Salathiel (Nathanite) may have begotten each a son named Zorobabel. Families in alliance that subsequently get wed often had the tradition of naming their children the same names in both families, as a memento to their partnership. Centuries prior, for instance, Omri’s son Ahab and David’s descendant Jehoshaphat named their successive heirs Joram/Jehoram and Ahaziah/Ahazijah (and perhaps countless other sons’ names in common). And note the meaning of “Zorobabel”: birth at Babylon (puts the ‘baby” in “Babylon” hehe). That’s true of all Jews that generation, so that name may have been somewhat commonplace.

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Hello, Andz. This comment got stuck in moderation while the blog was dormant, I apologise for the delay in clearing it.

      A good thought, and you are correct, that could also explain it, I think. I should ban you for that joke on Babylon, though 🙂 .

    • Keith Pearcy says:

      Trying to explain this from an iPhone and off the cuff in a one shot writing, might come across as a bit whacky… but here goes:
      Zerubbabel (conceived in Babylon) was commissioned by Cyrus to to rebuild the physical temple in Jerusalem after the exile into Babylon and subsequent liberation. Cyrus believe the prophecy recorded many years earlier about him in Ish ch 45 and made the written decree for the rebuild which was later carried out by king Darius to fulfill the 70 years of exile (exactly to the timing of the temple completion) prophecy by Jeremiah.
      In Zec ch4 Zerubbabel is mingled into writing of prophecy of the two anointed ones also written about in Rev ch 11. For Zerubbabel the word to him was “not by might not by power but by My Spirit says the Lord”
      That Spirit mentioned is now been described by Jesus as “the Spirit of Truth”
      Those two anointed ones speak God’s truth (by my Spirit) to begin to separate wheat and Tares, (sheep and goats) on the earth which rebuilds a true Spiritual temple (temple made without hands) where truth resides and people desiring truth flow unto it. (The true church)
      The significance of Zerubbabel being of both earthly lineages of Christ and his part in the temple rebuild relates to a spiritual temple yet to be built.
      In Rev 18 a warning to God’s people to flee from Babylon’s sin and pending plagues, is also significant. This is a spiritual Babylon that has God’s people in captivity but the truth of the two anointed ones, set free the captives to truth and righteousness to that spiritual temple made without hands.
      Who The two anointed ones really are may be a story for another day.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Thanks, Keith. I believe you are correct about Cyrus, Darius, and the 70 years. It was 70 years from the first exile to the first return and 70 years from the temple destruction to the completion of the rebuild. Obviously, Zerubbabel was central to the return/rebuild.

        I also agree that Zechariah 4 appears to connect Zerubbabel and the two witnesses of Revelation 11. The general dispensational view, I guess, would be that Zerubbabel was instrumental to the first restoration of Israel, the two witnesses to the second restoration of Israel. I can see the point in that but admit I’ve not completely wrapped my head around it all, though.

        I am relatively sure that the description of the anointed ones in Revelation is intended to make us think of Moses and Elijah. Some say that is because they actually ARE Moses and Elijah. Others think God is telling us that the same Spirit that worked through Moses and Elijah is still working and will work through these two individuals, and that it is not intended to identify the individuals, but to identify the Spirit. I don’t see any reason we have to answer this question and I am certain the Lord could have told us specifically that it is Moses and Elijah, and didn’t. I therefore am operating under the assumption that I don’t need to know.

  4. Steve Case says:

    Thanks for your very honest analysis, which I found helpful. I started to explore this question whilst preparing a couple of bible studies on Haggai. I too get the impression that God wants us to take special note of Zerubbabel.

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Thank you, Steve. I apologise for the long delay in clearing this through moderation — the blog was dormant and has just been reactivated.

      It really is a very interesting study, isn’t it? Of course, there is much we just can’t know for sure now. And I must admit I still don’t think I really fully have a handle on the significance of Zerubbabel.

  5. Patrick B Biglane says:

    Are you still on this thread. It’s been 4 years. This is a topic I have been working for years, and I have some insights. Let me know if you see this, and I will post…blessings 🙂

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Hello, Patrick. I apologise for the delay in clearing this through moderation, it got stuck while the blog was dormant.

      This post still is getting traffic. If you wanted to post more on the topic (as long as it is within the commenting policy, obviously) I will certainly be interested in what you have.

  6. Kenneth Mcrae says:

    Excellent and so helpful. I am writing a book called Shadow of the Seed of the Woman and The Seed of the Serpent. Have done a lengthy chapter on the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Citing the meaning of all the names in the bloodlines and the message they declare. Wanted to know why Salathiel and Zorobabel appeared twice and found your site. Would ask your permission to list your website and to direct people to your articles on Zerubbabel genealogy and Jeconiahs curse. I live in Invercargill New Zealand and am a born again Christian of thirty years standing .
    Thank you Jon.
    Kenny Mcrae

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Hello, Kenny. I apologise for the delay in clearing this through moderation while the blog was dormant.

      Thank you for the kind words. Of course you can list the website — it’s public, after all! I am glad you found it helpful. As you can see from the comments, others find the topic quite interesting as well.

  7. Todd Louis Gifford says:

    So the sons of Zerubbabel are listed in 1 Chronicles 4:19 as “And the sons of Zerubbabel were Meshullam and Hananiah, Shelomith was their sister; and Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah and Jushab-hesed, five,” (NASB) and then goes on to list other names.

    Matthew lists the next descendant from Zerubbabel as “Abihud”. Luke lists the next descendant from Zerubabbel as “Rhesa”.

    Who are “Abihud” and “Rhesa”? Why the conspicuous disconnect to the 1 Chronicles genealogy? What resources were Matthew and Luke drawing from to make their genealogies? Why would the authors and readers of these genealogies (who likely had access to the 1 Chronicles genealogies) okay with the discrepancies?

    • Jon Gleason says:

      As noted above, many Jews were known by different names. This fact, and the tradition with regard to the names of any sons of Zerubabel, would have been well-known to Matthew’s readers.

      As you note, the readers of these genealogies would have had access to I Chronicles. So also would the writers.

      Also well-known to the readers of Matthew would be the fact that he’s obviously leaving gaps at some places (several kings are left out). So there’s no reason to assume that Matthew is not talking of a grandson or great-grandson here. His purpose is not to show a complete family tree. So a gap in the genealogy would be perfectly acceptable to readers who would likely have not just Chronicles but access to full genealogical records.

  8. Jeffrey J Jones says:

    The problem with this explanation is, it leaves out the curse that no son from jeconiah’s bloodline would sit on the throne, which is why Mary came from David’s son Nathan, while step-dad Joseph, who had the legal title to the throne, came from Solomon and Jeconiah.

  9. Twill says:

    Thanks for your article, I hope to look further and find a definitive answer on this topic. One answer I did find to an important question which I will mention here if I may as it may help people as it has helped me. Matthew is listing Mary’s lineage – the Joseph is actually Joseph the father of Mary not the husband of Mary. There is an error in the translation. There are two separate Hebrew versions of Matthew – one copied down from a manuscript dating back to 1576-1600 AD, from the digital library of Bodleian Library, which is the main research library of the University of Oxford and one of the oldest libraries in Europe. The other dating back to 15th-16th century AD originating from Italy. BOTH of them saying “Yoseph abi Miryam = Joseph father of Mary”. Wealthy Jewish converts hired scribes to write down scriptures that they looked after and which helped them defend themselves against the Catholic church. You can see a copy here: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/ad5d33b1-e475-4328-8efd-6040be77a2cb/surfaces/cd0aef60-2bcf-418f-9007-86b4256623ba/

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Hello, Twill, thank you for the comment. It is obvious that you are serious about studying the Bible, which is commendable.

      I’m quite familiar with the Bodleian Library in Oxford, but the fact that a manuscript is held there means nothing as to its authority. They hold many manuscripts of things besides the Bible and many spurious manuscripts. Their criteria is largely whether it is an interesting historical artefact, which the one you’ve mentioned certainly is.

      I don’t agree with your conclusion, however. There is no reason to assume that Matthew was first written in Hebrew (it could have been, of course), nor that these two manuscripts are more accurate than the Greek text.

      No one who knows Greek would accept that Matthew is saying that Joseph is the father of Mary. That simply is not what the Greek says. Your theory would require that for 2000 years the churches (in all languages and translations) have been using the wrong Scriptures for Matthew, and your evidence is two manuscripts from the 15th and 16th centuries. This view of Joseph not only does not appear in the Greek, it also doesn’t appear in any of the translations down through the centuries.

      Theologically, I can’t accept that. For an explanation as to why, please see the following articles:

      In short, I can’t believe that the overwhelming majority of believers and churches throughout the entire time since the coming of Christ were so absent the leading of the Holy Spirit as to have this wrong. So although I appreciate the diligence of your study, I can’t accept your conclusion — it doesn’t fit with what I believe the Bible teaches as to the way God has preserves His Word.

      • LeEric S Marvin says:

        Matthew 1:17 constitutes the worlds earliest use of a check sum error. Matthew states there are 14 generations, Joseph as “Husband” results in 13 generations. Making him an addition generation as Father of Mary, fixes the check sum error. The Greek word translated husband in both verse 16 and 19, is different. Meaning Matthew meant a difference. Both words mean “adult protective man”. The difference between the two defines whether Father or Husband. The context of verse 19 means “husband”. But context of verse 16 in light of checksum error, must be FATHER.
        It’s important that Mary is of the Kingly line and has a lineage to prove it. As Numbers 36 comes into play when Mary marries Joseph and her Fathers rights and inheritances are transfer to her husband Joseph.

        Jon, I have the Gleason surname in my ancestry!

      • Jon Gleason says:

        I posted this in response to you on another thread but I’ll repeat it here because your check sum error argument is flawed.

        This teaching is based on several errors. For one, it ignores the usual Jewish method of counting, which is inclusive. When it says from Abraham to David is 14 generations, it includes both of them. When it says from David to the carrying away to Babylon is 14 generations, it includes David in that 14 as well. But it doesn’t use a person as the end point of this 14, it includes an event, the captivity, so unlike David who was counted twice, neither Josiah nor Jeconiah are counted twice.

        This is not novel, this is the usual Jewish way of counting.

  10. Pingback: Zerubbabel and Shealtiel – Bible stuff

  11. Dan Beach says:

    Hi, my brother. You, sir, are a blessing. You gave me what I was looking for. Thank you. I walked into this because of a conversation about totaling up the ages that men were when their son was born, as a way of arriving at an estimate of the age of the earth. This apparent discrepancy caught my eye, and I have been in distraction ever since, until this post. I agree Neri in a second marriage on the surface seems a bit of a stretch, but I truly believe that is the answer. It ticks all the boxes, and really seems to me, out of all the possibilities, to be the closest. And one I had not thought of. I’m out of that fog, but into another one; acquired about the same time as the other one. ll Chronicles, in listing the kings of Judah, beginning in chapter 22, then 23 and 25, lists three more names not mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy: Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah. In Matthew, it jumps from Joram to Ozias (Uzziah), missing those three. Can you offer any help in understanding this? Thanks.

  12. Dan Beach says:

    Hey, brother. Just one more question. In Luke 3, Cainan is listed as Arphaxad’s son, but not in Genesis 11. Any thoughts on that one? (Leaving out the son and going to the grandson, for some reason?)

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Again I do not know, but I suspect God did this intentionally so that we would not assume that the genealogies are necessarily complete. Perhaps we aren’t supposed to add up the years?

  13. Jon Gleason says:

    I apologize for the delay in clearing this through moderation. Responsibilities arising out of my wife’s passing caused me to decide to let this slip.

    I can’t say exactly why Matthew leaves out some kings, but I have some ideas. I discussed it briefly in these two articles:

    I do not know for sure, though. Hope that helps!

Comments welcome! (but please check the comment policy)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s