1. 1 Chronicles 3:17–24 (ESV)
  2. Exposition

Summary

1 Chronicles 3:17–24 (ESV)

17 and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son,

The third major section of 1 Chronicles 3:1–24 traces the line of Davidic descent from the exile in the days of Jehoiachin into postexilic times down to the time of the Chronicler. This period was of great importance to postexilic Israel. Good external documents exist that confirm Jehoiachin’s exile and imprisonment. One such document, the Babylonian Chronicle records the allotment of food rations by the authorities to Jehoiachin and his five sons (seven in 1 Chronicles 3:17–18).1

Jeconiah is called the captive because he was exiled to Babylon in 597 BC (2 Kings 24:12).

The prophet Jeremiah, whose writings the Chronicler knew very well (see 2 Chronicles 35:25, 2 Chronicles 36:12, 2 Chronicles 36:21–22), had earlier announced that God had rejected Jeconiah’s family from the royal line (Jeremiah 22:28–30). This prophecy may have raised questions about Jeconiah’s descendants after the exile. What would become of the Davidic line? Would it be replaced by someone else?

In this genealogy, the Chronicler affirmed that God had lifted his curse and re-established Jeconiah’s line as the object of Israel’s future royal hopes. Jeconiah himself was released from prison in Babylon upon the accession of Evil-merodach to the throne.2 2 Kings 25:27–29 states, Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. And he spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put off his prison garments. His descendant Zerubbabel was the leader of the postexilic community (Ezra 3:1–13). In fact, God declared that Zerubbabel would be like his signet ring (Haggai 2:23) unmistakably removing the curse on Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:24).

Thus, new hope was kindled for the restoration of the Davidic line after the exile.

It is for this reason that the Chronicler introduces the last section of the Davidic genealogy with King Jehoiachin the captive (1 Chronicles 3:17).3

As has already been stated, Zerubbabel never became king, but the Chronicler ends this section of the genealogy with a focus on Zerubbabel (1 Chronicles 3:19–24). His line represented the only legitimate royal family for Israel after the exile. Interestingly, both Matthew and Luke agreed with the Chronicler and identified Jesus with Zerubbabel’s lineage (see Matthew 1:12–13; Luke 3:27).4 These postexilic descendants of David represent the corporate incarnation for the eventual restoration of the Davidic kingship.5

This revitalized hope is reflected in the names of Zerubbabel’s children. In contrast to the name Zerubbabel (Offspring of Babylon), the names of Zerubbabel’s children are suggestive of the hope of restoration that one would expect in their day: Meshuallam (Restored), Hananiah (Yahweh Is Merciful), Shelomith (Peace), Hashubah (Yahweh Has Considered), Ohel (Tent [of Yahweh]), Berechiah (Yahweh Has Blessed), Hasidiah (Yahweh Has Had Covenant love) and Jushab-hesed (Covenant Love Returns).6

There is a problem regarding the lineage of Zerubbabel. 1 Chronicles 3:19 refers to Zerubbabel as the “son of Pedaiah," while elsewhere he is described as a son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, Ezra 3:8; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai 1:12, Haggai 1:14; Haggai 2:2, Haggai 2:23; Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). One of two options is possible: Pedaiah may have become the head of Zerubbabel's family after Shealtiel’s death, or Shealtiel may have died childless and so Pedaiah fulfilled the responsibility of levirate marriage with his widow (Deuteronomy 25:5–6), making Shealtiel the legal father of Zerubbabel.7,8

Sorting out the relationships and the number of generations that appear in 1 Chronicles 3:21–24 is complicated by difficulties in the Hebrew text and differences from the Septuagint.9 The major problem is 1 Chronicles 3:21: “The sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, his son Rephaiah, his son Arnan, his son Obadiah, his son Shecaniah.” Williamson presents three possibilities for the translation of this text. Since the text is probably corrupt, textual reconstruction must be attempted either by minor changes that more or less preserve the corrupted text or more drastic adjustments that fit in with the structure of the whole passage (1 Chronicles 3:17–24).

  1. In the Hebrew text, 1 Chronicles 3:21 reads not as “the son of” but as the “the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan…the sons of Shecaniah.” This means that the second half of 1 Chronicles 3:22, the sons of Shemaiah…, begins a list of contemporaries who were not connected to one another or to the line of Zerubbabel and his grandsons in 1 Chronicles 3:21.10 This means that we are dealing with a single generation of people.11 In other words, the genealogy at this point is segmented, displaying sideways movement in which details of a single generation are expanded. They are probably, therefore, other Davidic families contemporary with Zerubbabel. If this is correct, the genealogy only goes two generations beyond Zerubbabel (from Zerubbabel to Shecaniah). The important point is that we do not have a list here of four or six generations but only two. This verse cannot be used to date the book of Chronicles.12 This seems to be the most cogent interpretation of this very difficult verse of Scripture.

  2. These names could represent further sons of Hananiah. Rudolph suggests that his son simply be substituted by and before each of the four names.  The text would then read, “The sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, and Rephaiah, and Arnan, and Obadiah, and Shecaniah.” Myers introduces the words also there were at the beginning of the list of four names to accentuate the connection with Hananiah. This is an attractive explanation but lacks any textual support.

  3. The ESV, RSV, and NRSV follow the Septuagint (LXX) in amending the Hebrew text to read his son four times instead of the sons of, with the effect that each of the four names represents successive generations. The effect of this is to stretch the descendants of Zerubbabel over six or more generations extending the line down to around 400 BC. This, however, is based on the corrupted text of the LXX and should rather not be adopted.  Williamson (correctly) concludes that because of this and due to lack of other evidence and all its difficulties the Hebrew text should be retained, as in Interpretation1 above.