1 Chronicles3:17–24

Igal: one rare name, three verses in the whole canon verbal / quotation: confirmed

The Igal of v. 22 is written with the same Hebrew word as the Igal who was one of the twelve sent to spy out the land and the Igal who was one of David's mighty men. The Pulpit makes the identification of the word explicit: it is “a word ( יגִךאל ) identical with the Igal of Numbers 13:7 ; 2 Samuel 23:36.” The Verifier confirms the shared lexeme and shows how narrow it is: H3008 occurs in three verses in the whole canon, and these are they. This is a lexical identity, not a quotation and not a claim that the men are related; the tier records the rarity of the shared word, nothing more.

Numbers 13:7 · 2 Samuel 23:36

basis: Verifier: shared rare Hebrew lexeme H3008 Yigʼâl (in 3 vv canon-wide, the only three occurrences); the Pulpit independently notes the Hebrew word is identical. Lexical identity only; no quotation and no claimed relation between the persons.

The same names, rebuilding the same city structural / thematic: confirmed

Pedaiah, Meshullam, Pelaiah, Akkub, Berechiah, Shecaniah, Hananiah and Elioenai are not only names in this register; they are the names of the men standing beside Ezra and Nehemiah a generation or two later, reading the Law aloud, repairing a wall section, sealing a covenant. The Verifier records genuine shared lexemes across these verses. What it cannot record is identity of persons: several of these names are common, and the FSSB makes no claim that the same men are meant. The link is of a milieu, not of a quotation: the Chronicler's closing register and the Nehemiah lists come out of one restored community that named its sons the same way.

Nehemiah 8:4 · Nehemiah 8:7 · Nehemiah 11:7 · Nehemiah 6:18

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H6305 Pᵉdâyâh (in 8 vv), H4918 Mᵉshullâm (in 25 vv), H6411 Pᵉlâyâh (in 3 vv), H6126 ʻAqqûwb (in 8 vv), H1296 Berekyâh (in 11 vv), H7935 Shᵉkanyâh (in 10 vv). Real shared lexemes, but they are personal names, so the basis supports a shared post-exilic milieu and not a verbal dependence.

Hattush, Elioenai, Eliashib: the register touches a dated caravan structural / thematic: confirmed

Ellicott identifies the Hattush of v. 22 with the Hattush of the sons of David who went up with Ezra in 457 BC, and notes that an Elioenai also went up with Ezra. The Verifier finds the Elioenai and Eliashib lexemes shared with the Ezra and Nehemiah lists. This is the only place where this genealogy can be pinned to a datable event, and the Pulpit uses it to argue that v. 21 lists brothers rather than generations. The link is onomastic and prosopographic; the identification of the persons is Ellicott's judgment, which the Pulpit calls a coincidence that “must not be regarded as con-elusive.”

Ezra 8:2 · Ezra 10:27 · Nehemiah 12:41

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H454 ʼElyᵉhôwʻêynay (in 9 vv) and H475 ʼElyâshîyb (in 15 vv) with Ezra 10:27 and Nehemiah 12:41. The Ezra 8:2 Hattush identification is Ellicott's and the Pulpit's judgment, not a Verifier-computed lexeme, and the Pulpit itself declines to call it conclusive.

Jekamiah: the same rare name, almost certainly a different man structural / thematic: confirmed

The Jekamiah of v. 18 shares a name with a Jerahmeelite in 1 Chronicles 2:41, and the Verifier shows the lexeme is confined to those two verses in the entire canon. It is tempting to tier a link that rare as verbal. The FSSB does not, because nothing in the brief connects the two men, they belong to different clans of Judah, and rarity of a proper name is not evidence of literary dependence. The honest statement is narrower: two men in Judah, a few centuries apart, carried a name the rest of Scripture never uses.

1 Chronicles 2:41

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H3359 Yᵉqamyâh (in 2 vv, the only occurrences in the canon). Deliberately not tiered verbal: the rarity is real but the referents are different men in different clans, so the basis supports a lexical curiosity, not a quotation or a dependence.

Write this man childless: the prophecy this list is read against flagged: verify source

Every commentator in the brief who touches v. 17 reaches for Jeremiah 22:30. JFB: “Jeconiah was written childless (Jer 22:30), a prediction which (as the words that follow explain) meant that this unfortunate monarch should have no son succeeding him on the throne.” Poole and Gill answer the objection the same way; Cambridge paraphrases the sense as reckoning him childless because no son of his shall succeed him. Barnes takes a harder line, suggesting Assir may have died young or been made a eunuch and the Solomonic line become extinct. The FSSB flags this link rather than confirming it, for two reasons. The Verifier computes no shared lexeme for this pair, so there is no recorded verbal basis. And the meaning of the prophecy is itself contested among the named sources: childless in fact, or childless as to the throne.

Jeremiah 22:30

basis: No Verifier-computed shared lexeme for this pair; the link rests entirely on the named commentators (JFB, Poole, Gill, Cambridge, Barnes), whose readings of the prophecy conflict with one another. Provenance of the connection is commentary, not computed lexeme.

The law of the heiress and the law of the brother, used as repair tools flagged: verify source

K&D reconciles this chapter with Luke 3:27 by supposing that Assir left only a daughter who, under the law of heiresses, married within her father's tribe, and that her son Shealtiel inherited legally; and reconciles v. 19 with Haggai and Matthew by supposing that Shealtiel died without male issue and that Pedaiah raised up seed to his brother. Benson and Gill reach for the same levirate statute. Barnes invokes the inheritance law of Numbers 27:8-11 to a different end, arguing that the line of Solomon went extinct and the inheritance passed to Nathan's branch. These are legal mechanisms that would explain the data; none of them is stated by the Chronicler. The FSSB flags the link accordingly: the statutes are real, the application here is reconstruction.

Numbers 27:8 · Deuteronomy 25:5

basis: No Verifier-computed shared lexeme with this unit. The connection is a harmonizing reconstruction offered explicitly as a supposition by K&D, and used differently by Barnes, Benson and Gill; it is recorded as the commentators' proposal, not as the text's own claim.

Shelomith their sister: a daughter in a register that counts sons structural / thematic: confirmed

In a list whose entire function is male succession, v. 19 stops to name a woman and mark her relation, אֲחוֹתָֽם׃, sister of them. She is named nowhere else in Scripture, and, as the Pulpit notes, “this person is mentioned here only.” Benson and Poole use her to argue about maternity, that she is full sister to the two named sons and half sister to the five of v. 20. The FSSB notices something simpler and offers it as a structural observation, not a verbal one: the Chronicler's registers repeatedly preserve women who carry no succession value, and that habit is of a piece with the genealogy of Matthew, which will keep four women in a list of fathers. No shared lexeme can be computed across the Testaments here.

Matthew 1:3

basis: Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), so no shared Strong's lexeme is possible and no verbal tier is available. The recorded basis is a shared compositional habit in genealogical lists, that women without succession value are nevertheless entered; stated as a pattern observation, not as a claim of dependence.

The prisoner's line and the first half of Matthew's list ancient/widely-held

⚙ The names of vv. 17 and 19 are the names Matthew reaches for when he crosses the exile: Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel. Ellicott notes that the Greek form Salathiel is the one Matthew uses and that Assir is absent from Matthew's list as he is from the Seder Olam; JFB, Poole, Gill, Cambridge and the Pulpit all read this verse with Matthew 1:12 open beside it. K&D and Cambridge wrestle with the harder problem that Luke 3:27 traces Shealtiel through Neri of Nathan's line while Chronicles has him among Jeconiah's sons, and the Pulpit proposes the distinction that has done most of the work since: distinguish the natural descent from the royal descent, and let the royal swallow the natural where necessary. None of those harmonies is certain. What is certain, and is the point here, is that the Evangelists reached into this damaged, disputed, half-legible register when they needed to say who Jesus legally was. The link is cross-Testament and can carry no shared Strong's lexeme; it is the succession of named persons, attested by every commentator in this brief.

Matthew 1:12 · Luke 3:27 · Haggai 1:1

Anani, and where the register runs out novel

⚙ The last name in David's genealogy is Anani, and Gill records that the Targum identifies him with the King Messiah, since the name carries the sense of clouds and the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13 comes with the clouds of heaven. The FSSB does not endorse that identification: it is a Targumic and later Jewish reading of a name, not an exegesis the Hebrew compels, and Gill reports it rather than asserting it. What survives the caution is Gill's own inference, and it is considerable. The Jewish tradition that produced this reading expected the Messiah at the end of this genealogy, and the genealogy ends within a few centuries of the birth of Jesus. Benson, reading v. 21, says the register was preserved “to assist us in tracing the descent of our Lord Jesus Christ from him, that we might have that proof, among others, of his being the true Messiah.” Matthew Henry says the same of the whole chapter: “From this family, as concerning the flesh, Christ came.” The Targumic identification of Anani is itself ancient, but it is a Jewish reading of a name rather than any Christian exegetical consensus, and the inference drawn here is Gill's own; this entry is therefore marked novel. The Messianic purpose of the register, stated by Benson and Henry, is the widely-held part.

Daniel 7:13 · Matthew 1:13

Mercy is restored: names as prophecy in a house with no throne novel

⚙ Ellicott makes an observation about naming that is worth following further than he takes it. The last kings bore names that were “parables of the judgment,” and the sons of Zerubbabel bear names that are parables of hope: Pedaiah, Iah hath redeemed; Jushab-hesed, which Cambridge renders “Mercy is restored”; Rephaiah, Iah healeth; Pelatiah, Iah is deliverance; Jeshaiah, Iah is salvation; Elioenai, mine eyes are unto Iah; Hodaviah, thank ye Jehovah. Ellicott calls the last of these “a prophecy of faith.” Read as a sequence, this family spent four generations in a landless register confessing that God redeems, heals, delivers, saves, and restores covenant love, with no institutional evidence that he was doing any of it. The FSSB reads this as genuine, if indirect, testimony to Christ: it is the shape of the hope into which he came, kept alive in the only medium a powerless house still controlled. This is the FSSB's own synthesis of Ellicott's and Cambridge's sourced glosses; it is not a claim that any of these names predicts Jesus.

1 Chronicles 3:20 · 1 Chronicles 3:24